Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.

Clause 3
	 — 
	National Targets for Microgeneration

Amendment proposed [10 March]: No. 7, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words
	', and after consultation with such public and private sector bodies as he considers appropriate'.—[Mr. Forth.]
	Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 8, in page 2, line 21, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
	No. 9, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'national' and insert 'regional'.
	No. 10, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales and the regions of England'.
	No. 16, in page 2, line 29, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales or one of the regions of England'.
	No. 17, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
	No. 18, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales and the regions of England'.
	No. 19, in page 2, line 43, leave out 'number' and insert 'numbers'.
	No. 20, in page 2, line 44, leave out 'England and Wales' and insert
	'Wales and regions of England'.
	No. 30, in page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
	Government amendment No. 36
	No. 31, in page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (8).
	Government amendments Nos. 37 and 38.
	No. 12, in page 4, line 20, leave out 'appropriate' and insert
	'efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial'.

Eric Forth: —to acknowledge the potential role of the regions. [Laughter.]
	On 10 March, the Minister said
	"Regions will be able to set their own targets for microgeneration within any national target that we may set, and it would be more appropriate for them to do so, rather than central Government setting them. On those grounds, I oppose amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 20."
	That raises a number of important questions. I should like to hear from the Minister at some stage whether he intends to table amendments—probably not at this stage, but when the Bill goes to another place—to give effect to what I have just read out. We shall come to that shortly in another context.
	The Minister may think that his words are sufficient, but not all of us are that trusting. We would feel more secure if such important matters were spelt out in the Bill. That, then, is the first question: should this not be subject to an amendment, probably tabled in the House of Lords?
	There are a number of other questions to be discussed. By what mechanism would the regional targets match the national targets? If we are to have a bottom-up approach rather than just a national target, I am intrigued by the question that then arises. Has the Minister thought out the way in which regions will be able to set their own targets within any national target?
	That gives rise to several further questions. The obvious one is whether the process is to be voluntary. Can some regions set targets while others cannot? If all regions set targets, what will happen if the sum of the regional targets does not match the national target? There are a number of potential difficulties. How far has the Minister—or, more accurately, his officials—thought this through, and how do they think it will work? We cannot have Ministers throwing statements into a debate without our having any idea what they mean and how they would be given effect. I am sorry that the Minister was not able to accept my amendments, and I hope that we shall hear some further explanation from him.
	That brings me to amendment No. 12. On 10 March, the Minister said
	"The word 'appropriate' is deliberately broad, whereas amendment No. 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), might be too prescriptive, as we may wish to consider other things when making such a decision."
	That is followed by the key words—at least in this regard the Minister is entirely consistent:
	"However, I assure him that when considering whether to use the powers in clause 6, we will, as always, ensure that we do so in a way that is effective and cost-effective, as well as environmentally beneficial."—[Official Report, 10 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1114–5.]
	That is fine as far as it goes. It is a very reassuring statement of the Minister's good intentions. As we know, however, Ministers come and Ministers go. I am not sure that any succeeding Minister would necessarily be bound by what this Minister has to say. That is why I was disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my amendment, which I thought would add clarity and improve the Bill. I wanted to insert the words
	"efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial"
	because—we shall be able to discuss this in more detail when we deal with later amendments—wind power is sporadic and unreliable, as is solar power, while water power is unfortunately relatively rare and inaccessible in this country. I think that we should make very clear what contribution such techniques can make, and that was my intention.

Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend is making a controversial point. Is not one of the difficulties caused by the fact that this is a private Member's Bill, the procedure for which is primarily designed to deal with uncontroversial matters? I have a sneaking suspicion that I shall hear a fair amount from my right hon. Friend this morning, and perhaps from some of his colleagues. Would not the solution be for the Government to introduce measures as controversial as this Bill?

Eric Forth: I could not agree more, and I have made that point many times over the years. I regard it as my duty as a Member of Parliament to pay particular attention to private Members' Bills precisely because they do not have the benefit of the same governmental scrutiny as Government Bills. My hon. Friend is right: if a Bill is substantial and has controversial elements, the private Member's Bill procedure is not ideal. If the Government wish to suggest that the Bill is essential or vital to the national good, they should be legislating and not leaving it to a Member. I shall not digress further, however, as I do not wish to test your patience this early, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, I hope that I do not do so at all.
	If my hon. Friend thinks that this bit of the Bill is controversial, I hope that he will be here when we delve deeply into its planning and development aspects and try to tease out the relationship between the techniques known as microgeneration and the planning regime. It will be important to examine those matters later, including the size of—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I took the right hon. Gentleman at his word when he said that he would not test my patience early on. I hope therefore that he will now address the amendment.

Eric Forth: I was just trailing what is to come, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wished to forewarn the House about the exciting debates that we will have later. I am warming the House up a bit for those debates—if that is an appropriate term in this subject.
	We were talking about the word "efficacious". Although claims are made for the benefit of microgeneration, it should not be assumed that simply to install something that provides power will be the right thing to do in all circumstances. That is why I think that we need a balanced approach, represented by the words
	"efficacious, cost-effective and environmentally beneficial".
	I am using the term "environmentally" in a much broader sense, because we must not forget that those pioneers who developed our planning laws and the regime that supports them saw environmental matters rather differently. Times change, but in my view "environmental" does not mean only matters to do with the climate. It must continue to mean matters of planning and development. In that context, I mean visual appearance, sound nuisance and intrusion into domestic and community life. Those subjects will arise again later, but in the wording of amendment No. 12 I was trying to set the scene for a much more balanced approach than has so far been suggested.
	One of the difficulties that we have had throughout proceedings on the Bill is that—for the best of reasons—we have not really heard yet from its promoter, from the Minister or from its enthusiastic supporters how they see the crucial balance between the benefits that they claim for microgeneration and the planning difficulties that could arise. It will be important to be clear about that balance before we proceed much further.
	On the issue of cost-effectiveness, we must be clear about the likely cost implications of such installations and on whom the costs will fall. Will it be the domestic or business premise owner, the generators or distributors of power or the taxpayer through the Government? That is not sufficiently clear from the Bill, although I would welcome clarification.
	I do not want the Bill—or, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend, any other Bill—to float through the parliamentary process without our having an opportunity to hear about all its different aspects and to take a balanced view of it. That is the value of the parliamentary process. The Committee stage allows the Committee to consider certain aspects of the Bill, but on occasions on which there is an outbreak of consensus, especially between the main political parties, it is even more important that Bills are subjected to careful scrutiny. We need to ensure that the enthusiasts have not run away with themselves. There is a long history of legislation that has received so-called all-party support and has turned out to be thoroughly bad. The best example is probably the Child Support Agency, which we still have not got right, after all these years—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the amendment on which he is winding up the debate. It is amendment No. 7.

Eric Forth: Indeed, and I am eager to get on to the very important debates that are coming up. I just wanted to warm myself and the House up and get people's minds thinking along the right lines. I wanted also to see if I could persuade the Minister to clarify his position on the regional-national balance, but he does not look as though he wishes to try to do so. That matter will remain unresolved and their lordships may have to look at it again, along with other aspects of the Bill.
	I am disappointed by the Minister's response. It is not always good enough for a Minister, even one as good and decent as this one, to say, "Trust me. I have said the words so that is what will happen." I hope that he will forgive me if I would prefer to see the words on the face of the Bill. I do not seem to have persuaded him on this occasion, and therefore we can move on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendments made: No. 36, in page 3, line 7, leave out third 'the' and insert 'a'.
	No. 37, in page 3, line 13, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'.
	No. 38, in page 3, line 13, at end insert
	'(in place of the target which has been revised)'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 6
	 — 
	Sale of Electricity Generated by Microgeneration: Power to Modify Distribution and Supply Licences etc

Malcolm Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 5, line 14, leave out from ' "plant" ' to end of line 16 and insert
	'includes any equipment, apparatus or appliance;'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government amendments: Nos. 40 and 41, No. 33, Nos. 42 to 44, No. 34, Nos. 45 and 46, No. 80 and Nos. 51 and 52.

Malcolm Wicks: Good morning, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suspect that this will be one of the shorter speeches of the day. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 ensure that an order made under clauses 12 or 13 cannot cover matters that fall within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. All the other amendments in this group are drafting amendments.

Gregory Barker: As the Minister said, these are drafting amendments. The Bill has our full support and we wish to make good progress this morning in getting it on to the statute book, so I do not intend to delay the House.

Christopher Huhne: The Liberal Democrats also regard the amendments as drafting measures. The Bill has our full support, and I shall leave it at that.

Eric Forth: This is a very important group of amendments that deserves thorough scrutiny, although sadly there does not seem much stomach in the House for scrutiny so far. Someone has to do it, so it falls to me. The amendments will get some jolly thorough scrutiny, starting now.
	Let us look first at the Government amendments. In passing, it is interesting to note that the Government now seek to amend the Bill substantially. If there is any lengthening of the process, it seems substantially to be due to the Government amendments. I have tabled some modest amendments, but this pretty substantial set of Government amendments deserves our attention. Those who have made some mild complaints about the fact that someone has dared to seek to amend such a wonderful Bill as this should concentrate on this group as much as on any other and perhaps take it up with the Minister.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend realise that one of the amendments in this group— No. 80—has been produced by the Government since we adjourned last Friday?

Eric Forth: I am glad my hon. Friend picked that point up, because I was going to mention it later on. It is significant that if we had rushed through the Bill last week, we would not have had the benefit of the Government amendment that has since been tabled. The Bill might therefore have been defective in some way. The world should be grateful for the fact that the House lingered over the Bill last week to enable the Government to come forward with their later thoughts in the form of amendment No. 80, to which I will come shortly.
	The Minister seemed to want to nod through amendments Nos. 33 and 34 as though they were of little or no consequence, but I believe that we should ask at least some questions about them. I shall read out amendment No. 33  so that we know where we are:
	"An order under this section shall not include provision made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament".
	Here we are touching, importantly and properly, on the relationship between what happens here at Westminster and the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament. I always thought that environmental matters were without boundaries. I have been told over and again by Euro enthusiasts that one of the great strengths of the European Union is that it deals with cross-boundary—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) want to intervene?

Martin Horwood: No.

Eric Forth: I am glad the hon. Gentleman is enjoying the debate. I hope that he will stay for the whole five hours.
	One of the alleged benefits of our membership of the European Union, or, indeed, of the Union itself is that it deals with cross-border environmental matters. Yet, here we are, as I read this amendment, seemingly acknowledging that the approaches taken to these important environmental matters could be different, even within this tiny country of the United Kingdom or within the British Isles, and that the Scottish Parliament might well take a different view. That surely cuts right across all the arguments that I have ever heard about how it is vital that environmental matters are dealt with at not just a national but a trans-national level.
	It would appear that we might have a problem here. If we take the amendment literally—and we can do only that because the Minister did not bother to explain it—we envisage that the Scottish Parliament could digress from this Parliament in its approach to climate change and microgeneration. That is doubly unfortunate, since I would have thought that one of the environmental benefits of having Scotland as part of the United Kingdom is that it is almost certainly much richer in the renewable resources to which we all aspire. Therefore, the idea that the Scots might head off in a different direction, courtesy of devolution and the Scottish Parliament, seems unfortunate. For that reason alone, I would have thought that it might be better not to have this amendment in order that we could maintain integrity.

Michael Weir: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Scottish Parliament has already taken a different view? Its environmental targets are far superior to those set in this place.

Eric Forth: That may well be the case; I do not dispute that. However, it illustrates the potential difficulty. What would happen if the Scottish Parliament set lower targets, for example, and we felt that that was a most unfortunate thing to do?

Mark Lazarowicz: I refer to the declaration of interest that I made last week.
	I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the provision applies to a particular clause only. He can be reassured that where matters fall within the scope of a UK or GB-wide competence, they are not affected by the Bill, but where a matter is currently within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, it stays there. We are not changing the fundamental relationship in any way. I hope that he will be reassured by my understanding of the effect of the amendment.

Eric Forth: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I shall accept his explanation and move on as a small reward for his participating in the debate. I hope that we will hear a lot more from him as time goes on.
	That brings us on to the string of amendments that the Minister sought to dismiss as somehow trivial or technical—Nos. 40, 42, 43, 44, 45 and 46—in which we are beginning to tackle, really for the first time, the definition of microgeneration and the relationship between the Energy Act 2004 and the Bill. This was touched on at col. 1088 of the Official Report for 10 March 2006, when there was an interesting exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the Minister. We—that is the House, because I do not think we were being properly guided on that occasion—got a little confused about whether we were talking about microgeneration being solely concerned with renewables or whether it went beyond that. That subject will come up in a moment when we look at the relationship between the Energy Act and the Bill, but at that stage we were talking about targets and the Minister was helping to clarify matters. He said:
	"The target of 10 per cent. is for renewables . . . . It is not a target for microgeneration"—[Official Report, 10 March 2006; Vol. 443, c. 1088.]
	That set the scene for what I want to explore in some of these amendments, which is how far microgeneration, as we now want to define it, is involved with renewables only or whether it can involve any other source of energy.
	The Energy Act, to which the clause refers, comprehensively sets out an approach to microgeneration. That is one of the reasons why I have hesitated so far to give my wholehearted support to the Bill. Section 82 of the Act, to which the amendments refer, places a duty on the Secretary of State
	"to prepare a strategy for the promotion of microgeneration in Great Britain".
	It goes on to state that he
	"must publish the strategy within 18 months after the commencement".
	We should have had sight of that strategy by now. Perhaps when the Minister responds on this group, which he airily dismissed as being merely technical, he will tell us where we stand on that.

Malcolm Wicks: The strategy will be published by the end of this month.

Eric Forth: Is not this debate useful? Are we not starting to elicit some really useful information? Thank goodness for the parliamentary process, because the Minister has just reaffirmed that this matter, which is outstanding from the Energy Act, will come to fruition at the end of this month. I am grateful to him. It is important because before we embark on Third Reading we might want to have that document from the Government in order to set a proper context for that debate. That is another good reason why it would have been wrong to rush through a parliamentary stage ahead of the Government producing the document referred to in the Energy Act. I am grateful to the Minister, but we should all think a little about how far we want to rush things before getting that report, which must be relevant to the final consideration of the Bill in this House and in another place.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend realise that what the Minister said is no great deal, because under the terms of the provision to which he referred the latest date by which the report has to be laid before the House is 5 April this year? It will have taken seventeen and three-quarter months to produce the report against the 18-month maximum time scale.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot understand the reason for the delay, especially as we have known about the Bill and the dates when it would be considered for a long time. I am not really a suspicious sort of chap, so I hope that I do not evince too much suspicion by hoping that the report was not delayed artificially because the promoter of the Bill and the Minister assumed that we would have completed our consideration. Things should have been the other way round. Fortunately, because the House has chosen to debate the Bill properly and in proper detail, our Third Reading may take place after we have the benefit of the report, which would be a huge advantage.
	I come again to section 82 of the Energy Act 2004, where subsection (6) states:
	"For the purposes of this section 'microgeneration' means the use for the generation of electricity or the production of heat of any plant . . . which in generating electricity or (as the case may be) producing heat, relies wholly or mainly on a source of energy or a technology mentioned in subsection (7);"
	and
	"the capacity of which to generate electricity or . . . produce heat does not exceed the capacity mentioned in subsection (8)."
	Those are important matters. We are starting to get to the heart of the definition of microgeneration, as originally set out in the 2004 Act and which would be affected by the measures we are discussing.
	Subsection (7) gives the usual list of preferred sources of energy:
	"biomass . . . biofuels . . . fuel cells . . . photovoltaics . . . water (including waves and tides) . . . wind . . . solar power . . . geothermal sources . . . combined heat and power systems"
	and, crucially,
	"other sources of energy and technologies for the generation of electricity or the production of heat, the use of which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, cut emissions of greenhouse gases in Great Britain."
	I think, subject to correction, that the important distinction is that we are moving towards trying to establish whether microgeneration, in the context of climate change—which is, of course, the point of the Bill—is concerned only with renewables as such, or whether there should be a somewhat broader definition of sources of energy and technologies that would cut emissions of greenhouse gases. As I understand it, the two are not necessarily the same.
	Subsection (8) of section 8 notes that capacity is
	"in relation to the generation of electricity, 50 kilowatts"
	and
	"in relation to the production of heat, 45 kilowatts thermal".
	Given that the typical consumption of a household is between 1 and 3 kW at most, a 50 kW capacity is relatively large for a single domestic unit. That is something that we will have to come to in the context of a different group of amendments. In 2004, it certainly seemed clear not only that renewables were to be included in the definition of microgeneration, but that the definition could encompass sources that would cut emissions of greenhouse gases.
	There seem to be important differences between those provisions and amendments Nos. 51 and 52, in the Minister's name. Amendment No. 51 repeats, in essence, the provisions in the Energy Act, noting that
	"'microgeneration means the use for the generation of electricity or the production of heat of any plant (which, for this purpose, includes any equipment, apparatus or appliance)—which, in generating electricity or (as the case may be) producing heat, relies wholly or mainly on a source of energy or a technology mentioned in subsection (2)".
	The following subsection repeats the point about capacity. The energy sources are listed in amendment No. 52:
	"biomass . . . biofuels . . . fuel cells . . . photovoltaics . . . water (including waves and tides) . . . wind . . . solar power . . . geothermal sources . . . combined heat and power systems".
	That is crucially and, presumably, deliberately different from the definition in the Act, so the question arises: why have we lost the previous definition that allowed for other sources of energy
	"which would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State"
	cut emissions of greenhouse gases in Great Britain? That is an important question, which touches on the definition of microgeneration for that purpose. If we are now talking only about the second list, it eliminates, presumably deliberately, other possible sources of energy, either present or future.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it was slightly disingenuous of the Minister to say that these were merely drafting amendments? Amendment No. 52 is substantive.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. What worries me about the approach that has hitherto been taken to the Bill is that it neither serves the Bill nor the cause it espouses well for the Minister and the promoter of the Bill not to give the House the benefit of proper explanations of what they are trying to do. They may think that by remaining silent they will somehow accelerate the Bill's progress and rush it through the procedure, because delay is unacceptable—a bizarre interpretation of the legislative process, to say the least—but in fact they are simply forcing us to try to elicit information through the tabling of amendments and the initiation of debate. They are missing the point that if they had given the House a proper explanation in the first place, it might have made our proceedings much quicker. Perhaps that lesson will be learned by Members, but so far I fear that the penny has not dropped.
	I was interested to read a little item in a newspaper recently, headed "The £3,000 mini power station", which relates exactly to what we are talking about. I shall read from it, Madam Deputy Speaker; it will not take long:
	"The traditional household boiler could soon be a thing of the past. Ceres Power, the Aim-listed group, has successfully designed and tested a 1kW fuel cell stack that generates sufficient power for the average home.
	Fuel cell technology is typically powered by hydrogen but the fuel cell stack developed by Ceres can also produce electricity and heat from natural gas. The boiler, which fits comfortably into the palm of a hand, uses 'combined heat and power' technology. Unlike a conventional boiler that only produces heat, in Ceres's version a chemical reaction generates both heat and electricity. Any excess electricity can be sold to the national grid."
	That is exactly what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) wants to do through the Bill. The article notes that the technology could
	"cost the same as a conventional premium boiler".
	The company claims—they would, would they not?—that its technology
	"could save between 30 and 40 per cent. of total electricity costs in the home"
	and
	"significantly cut down the emission of greenhouse gases".
	When I read that, I wondered whether the chemical reaction in any way violates the principle that is being set out in the amendments, in the move—as I see it—entirely towards what we would broadly call renewables. I concede that it is heat and power technology, but will it, in all the different forms it could take, fit comfortably in the amendments?

Oliver Letwin: rose—

Eric Forth: Ah, my right hon. Friend is about to help me.

Oliver Letwin: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend and I certainly do not intend to do so for more than 15 seconds, but paragraph (c) in subsection (2) of amendment No. 52 refers specifically to what he has described: fuel cells.

Eric Forth: Indeed. I was merely trying to clarify whether it was felt that the technology that I briefly described would fit into that provision. Although my right hon. Friend, who is of course a great expert, has helped the House, he is not the promoter of the Bill or the Minister—yet—but I certainly accept his explanation.
	The good news and the saving of all is that subsection (4) of amendment No. 52 states:
	"The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2)"—
	the one that lists the now preferred sources of energy—
	"by addition to the sources of energy and technologies for the time being listed any other source of energy or technology for the generation of electricity or production of heat if he considers that the use of that source of energy or technology would cut emissions of greenhouse gases".
	Presumably, the argument is that the Secretary of State is to be allowed to broaden the original list in the 2004 Act, or to make it more flexible, by order.
	It always causes some nervousness when we see the Secretary of State doing something by order, because I do not know what reassurance we can get that we would have an opportunity to scrutinise such a decision by a future Secretary of State in an area as vital as this. A Secretary of State might suddenly pop up and say, "I have been persuaded by experts that this new source of energy fits within the aspirations that were set out in the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, and therefore I am going to add something to the list, under powers given to me by what is at present amendment No. 52(4), which had found its way into the Bill, which had become an Act. I am not entirely happy that we should be giving such powers to a Secretary of State without some sort of saving provision or parliamentary process, and yet that is the aspiration of the Minister.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that one of the problems, particularly with fuel cells, is that one of the by-products of fuel cell technology is water vapour—yet water vapour is the most extensive greenhouse gas, but for some reason it has been excluded from the provisions of the Bill?

Eric Forth: I hesitate to get involved in technical details of the sort that my hon. Friend is suggesting, although that subject might come up on Third Reading because, as we all know, the big picture of climate change in terms of water vapour clouds, carbon dioxide—natural and man-made—and so on, will have to be considered, but not quite yet. However, if my hon. Friend should seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, he might, in the context of fuel cells, wish to explore that matter further.
	My suspicions, originally aroused by subsection (4), were allayed when I read on, because it goes on:
	"The power to make an order under subsection (4)—
	(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument, and
	(b) includes power to make such supplemental or consequential provision (including provision modifying this section) and such transitional or saving provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit."
	It continues—this is the reassurance that I was seeking:
	"No order under that subsection may be made unless a draft of the order—
	(a) has been laid before Parliament".
	In that respect we have proper provision. Here I pay tribute to the Minister, as he has given us proper provision for the House to consider the changes that the amendment envisages.
	I would hope that, in the context of this group of amendments, at some point these matters will be clarified in terms of the change that has taken place between an Act as recent as the Energy Act 2004 and the Bill that we are now considering.

Malcolm Wicks: Perhaps I may clarify that point now. Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 do replicate the definition in the 2004 Act—the only difference is that in order to add to the list of technologies, the Secretary of State has to lay an order before Parliament, whereas under the 2004 Act the Secretary of State could just designate other sources as microgeneration. Therefore, our amendment enhances the role of Parliament. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be satisfied by that explanation.

Eric Forth: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. Again, we see the remarkable value of this process of debate and amendment.

Philip Hollobone: Would it not have been more helpful to the House if the Minister had said that at the beginning?

Eric Forth: Indeed it would; my hon. Friend is right. We are learning a lot of lessons today, which I hope will be promulgated outside the House. Those people who are in a rush to legislate do themselves a disservice, and not only because it is a bad way to legislate. There is the arrogance of people who say, "This is my Bill and we are all signed up to it and therefore it must not be questioned under any circumstances" on the one hand, and those who want to rush the process on the other—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the debate on how or how not to legislate is for another day. Today we are discussing the amendment.

Eric Forth: Yes of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is useful to make the point as often as possible because some people do not yet seem to have grasped it. However, I will leave that just for the moment.
	We now come to this neat little amendment, No. 80, which has been slipped into our proceedings. As has been said, is it not lucky that we are still considering the Bill today? Would it not have been terrible if we had wrapped up the proceedings prematurely on the previous sitting day and the Government had not had the chance to table that amendment, which popped up only on Wednesday 15 March?
	I freely concede that amendment No. 80 is not a significant or major amendment, but presumably, if this opportunity to amend the Bill had not arisen, the Bill, if the House agreed to it, would have gone to another place defective, and might have had to be amended by the House of Lords. As we all know, as time marches on in the private Member's Bill process, Bills have to go to the House of Lords, so it does become somewhat hazardous. Therefore, it is just as well, is it not, that we are able today to deal with this amendment—which I am sure is worthy, although the Minister has not bothered to explain it either—and therefore make some proper progress.
	All in all, subject to what the Minister may choose to say if he seeks to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, as far as I am concerned at this stage, this group of amendments may well be satisfactory, but I await further words from the Minister and further debate on these important amendments.

Christopher Chope: Following what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said in responding to the Minister, may I develop the point that I made on an intervention, which seemed to raise some eyebrows on the Front Bench and certainly did so on the Liberal Democrat Benches?
	We welcome to the House this morning the new Liberal Democrat spokesman on this subject, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne). He made some body movements and gestures when I suggested that one of the by-products of fuel cell technology is water vapour. I do not know whether he disputes that, but I have a note here that is relevant. I will not trouble the House with all the detail of it, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) will probably not need to be taught about this because he knows it already, but it says:
	"What is a fuel cell? Fuel cells are devices that produce electrical power. They operate by using the chemical properties of hydrogen and oxygen to create useable electrical current, heat and water vapour. In some ways they can be considered to be a continuously fuelled battery, although unlike a battery they do not store energy; they convert it from one form to another."
	The significant expression there is "water vapour", because if pure hydrogen is used as a fuel for these fuel cells, the only outputs are electricity, heat and water vapour.

Oliver Letwin: Again, I will not detain House for more than 30 seconds. Nobody was debating that fuel cells produce water; that is essential to the operation of a fuel cell. The problem with my hon. Friend's remarks is that water vapour is not a greenhouse gas.

Christopher Chope: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should say that. If that is his view, I hope that he has written a letter to The Sunday Telegraph in response to the letter in the letters column of 12 March 2006. It is a short letter, headed "Carbon dioxide is not the culprit". It criticises The Sunday Telegraph for making a common error in saying that carbon dioxide
	"is the main cause of global warming"
	as reported in the News Review of 5 March. The correspondent says:
	"It is an extremely small share of greenhouse gases and the anthropogenic (ie man-made) content is minuscule. If we take just the anthropogenic gases the percentages are: CO2 (carbon dioxide) 0.117 per cent, NHO2 (nitrous oxide) 0.047 per cent, CH4 (methane) 0.066 per cent, and CFCs and other gases 0.047 per cent"—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman could relate those remarks in quoting that letter to the amendment under discussion.

Christopher Chope: I am relating the letter to the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset challenged me on whether water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so I am citing a letter from The Sunday Telegraph.
	I have read the introductory paragraph to the letter, but the most important part of it says:
	"The most prevalent by far of all the greenhouse gasses is water vapour, representing more than 95 per cent., and it is 99.9 per cent. non-anthropogenic."
	Of course, water vapour that is produced as a result of fuel cell technology is anthropogenic.

Oliver Letwin: Again, I will not detain the House for long. The fact that there is a nut who writes to the papers does not mean that water vapour is a greenhouse gas—it is not.

Christopher Chope: I hope that the insurance policy that we all have against defamation will protect my right hon. Friend when he goes outside the House and says to Mr. Anthony Brookes, from Charlwood in Surrey, "You're a nut."

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that there are more nuts on this subject than on almost any other?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I bring the House back to the amendment under discussion?

Christopher Chope: This is an area of debate and, I submit, dispute. I certainly would not be so bold as to describe anyone who writes to The Sunday Telegraph as a nut. The correspondent says, and this is very relevant—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we have heard quite sufficient from the letter in The Sunday Telegraph.

Christopher Chope: The correspondent makes the point that there are large vested interests in climate change that are endeavouring to force us to spend billions of pounds on CO 2 reduction when the poorest nations of the world remain ill-served. Obviously we do not have expert opinion here, but the correspondent is saying that if water vapour is indeed a greenhouse gas—

Alan Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should spend large amounts on stopping cloud formation?

Christopher Chope: I know that the hon. Gentleman has many powers, but I do not suggest that he should stop cloud formation. Cloud formations would come under the category of non-anthropogenic. I am talking about anthropogenic water vapour, which is, in my submission, a greenhouse gas on the basis of what Mr. Brookes says.

Alan Whitehead: All right, let us try again. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we invest large amounts to stop people from boiling kettles to make tea?

Christopher Chope: Obviously, if a household wants to be economical in its use of electricity, one of the best things to do is to boil a kettle in the morning and put the surplus product from the kettle into a thermos flask, which avoids the need for the kettle to be re-boiled later in the day. I fear that not enough people are carrying out that process, so an avoidable waste of electricity is occurring. The hon. Gentleman makes a significant point.

Malcolm Wicks: We are all enjoying this satire on some of the wacky ideas around the area, but the hon. Gentleman's research assistant has misled him. He will have to wait two more weeks for April fool's day.

Christopher Chope: I do not know whether the Minister's comment is directed to the letters editor of The Sunday Telegraph, who printed the letter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I have already said? I think that we have heard sufficient from the letters columns of The Sunday Telegraph. Perhaps he will address his remarks more relevantly to the amendment.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is made on fuel cells.
	We know that the list in Government amendment No. 52 sets out sources of energy and technologies that are not purely what we might describe as renewable or green. As a consequence, sources of energy will be allowed to be used as a substitute for nuclear power, which does not generate any CO 2 and thus greenhouse gas, although they are less efficient. I do not understand why the promoter of the Bill and the Government seem to have it in for nuclear, because if we used more nuclear energy we would be able to reduce CO 2 emissions.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proposed new subsection (2)(i) in amendment No. 52 cites
	"combined heat and power systems."
	A lot of those systems use gas efficiently, but they are not renewable sources of energy. He is right to make it clear to the House that the Bill addresses not just renewable sources of energy, but the efficient use of fuel sources that will eventually run out.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend brings substantial expertise to the debate.

Mark Lazarowicz: That is precisely why the Bill's title is the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, not the climate change and renewable energy Bill. The whole purpose of the Bill is to deal with not only renewables, but the most efficient use of several forms of energy.

Christopher Chope: But what is sustainable? Who is defining sustainable? The hon. Gentleman has declared an interest and had the Bill drafted for him by the Sustainable Energy Partnership. Why is nuclear energy not sustainable? I would not wish to refer again to lots of newspaper articles, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I read a fascinating article recently.

Mark Lazarowicz: May I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that although I had assistance in the preparation of the Bill from the Sustainable Energy Partnership and drew on some of its ideas, it was not responsible for the detailed drafting?

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman will accept that one of the things that binds all the bodies in the Sustainable Energy Partnership is their hatred of nuclear generation and nuclear power, which is why they have defined sustainable energy as any energy coming from a non-nuclear source. That is one of the mischiefs that we are trying to expose.
	There was an interesting debate in the columns of one of our national newspapers in the past week on whether the best Greens and environmentally concerned people supported nuclear as a solution to the problem, or preferred renewables. I will not go into that debate in detail, but we must be aware that the promoter of the Bill and the Sustainable Energy Partnership are coming at the matter from a position of self-interest and prejudice against nuclear generation and the retention and renewal of this country's nuclear capacity.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) said, combined heat and power systems are not renewable. The systems can involve the use of refuse-derived fuel. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset will know that there is quite a lot of controversy about such fuel because there must be a process of incineration and combustion before it can be created. That process can result in noxious emissions and is a controversial way of dealing with this country's waste. Gasification and pyrolysis are obviously other ways of turning waste into fuel.

Kelvin Hopkins: I understand from my recent visit to Woking that provided that waste is combusted at a sufficiently high temperature, all those noxious chemicals can be burnt, and the residue is perfectly innocuous, with no serious gas emissions.

Christopher Chope: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says based on his visit to Woking. All I can say to him is that if he had attended the big public inquiry in Dorset last summer, which went on for many weeks—we have not yet received the inspector's report so I suppose it is, in a sense, sub judice—he would have found that there was tremendous scepticism and public concern about the prospect of having RDF plants in parts of the urban area surrounding Bournemouth and Christchurch.
	That stems partly from concern about incineration and the resulting noxious substances and partly from the fact that getting the waste to the place where it is burnt and made into refuse-derived fuel involves transport over long distances, storage and the building of substantial plants. That is a cause of great concern in my constituency and, I understand from reading articles, in many other parts of the country, although perhaps not in Woking. We should bear that concern in mind. Why does Government amendment No. 52 specify particular sources of energy but leave others out of the debate?
	The main point that I want to make concerns capacity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to that. I have already commented on the use of "sustainable energy" in the Bill's title as basically meaning anything that the promoters of sustainable energy want—anything other than nuclear. Similarly, many people outside the House will have been misled by the references in the Bill to microgeneration. When people talk about microgeneration they probably have in mind the sort of generating equipment that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is to put on his premises in, I think, Notting Hill, where he still lives. That windmill will generate about 400W of power.
	The Minister is doing better than that because I read in The Daily Telegraph on Monday, I think, that he is minded to install on his premises a windmill that will generate 1kW of power. It looks as though the Minister has not seen that article, but if it did not come to him in ministerial press cuttings, he needs to get a new supplier of ministerial press cuttings. The article said that the Minister is to have a generator on his premises which will generate a maximum of 1kW of electricity. Obviously, that shows that the Minister's household uses a lot more electricity than that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I will not cast aspersions because of that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope not because it is not relevant to the amendment that we are discussing.

Christopher Chope: I absolutely agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you will have noticed that subsection (3) of Government amendment No. 52 says that maximum capacity in relation to the generation of electricity is 50kW; in other words, the equivalent of a windmill 50 times the size of the one that the Minister is going to have on his house or of 50 windmills of that size in the Minister's garden. The Minister laughs, but in doing so he is probably trying to ridicule the notion that that amount of generating power in a domestic garden could be regarded as microgeneration, and that, of course, is exactly my point.
	Why are we allowing the definition of microgeneration to include units that generate up to 50kW of electricity—more than 50 times what is needed for the Minister's house and more than 100 times, indeed 125 times, what is needed for the house of my right hon. Friend? When we start talking about microgeneration of up to 50kW, we are talking about very big developments—enormous windmills or whole series of windmills. Why should microgeneration be deemed to include electricity generation 50 times or more what an individual household needs? I cannot understand that. I support the principle of microgeneration and the idea of reducing the need for the national grid to operate and allowing more energy production to be, I think the expression is, decentralised. I cannot for the life of me see that if a household chooses to put up to 50kW of electricity-generating capacity in the garden or on the house that should be described as microgeneration.
	I am disappointed that the Minister, when he came to look at the contents of the Energy Act 2004 and redrafted its provisions in the amendments that we now see before us, stuck to the figure of 50kW. I hope that he will explain how 50kW can genuinely be called, in popular parlance, microgeneration. I hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will think about this subject because if we are to get public support for decentralised power production, surely we need to gain the confidence of the general public. If somebody living, for example, in a seafront bungalow in Bexhill in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) could put up 50 windmills in their garden on the basis that it would be microgeneration and then sell almost all that surplus electricity into the national grid, and their neighbours could do the same thing, my hon. Friend would find that Bexhill, far from being a very attractive retirement area with south-facing views over the channel, would basically become an industrial landscape.

Mark Lazarowicz: If we get on to the next group of amendments, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) will be reassured that the Bill will not allow people suddenly to put 50 windmills in their back gardens in Bexhill, and that is certainly not the intention behind it.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that remark so far as it goes, but I had hoped that he would explain why he feels that microgeneration needs to be defined as anything up to 50kW rather than, perhaps, 1kW, which would surely be much more consistent with the popular understanding of microgeneration. Perhaps when the Bill reaches the other place we will have to ask their lordships whether there is a possibility of introducing into the Bill something called mini-microgeneration, which could be up to 1kW rather than up to 50kW. Whatever the promoter of the Bill says—we will come on to the debate about the planning aspects in due course—the Bill will say that 50kW of electricity generation is regarded as microgeneration. That defies common sense.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my worry that if we get this wrong, we will face difficulties similar to those surrounding another technology—telecommunications masts? If we get the exemption wrong, the level wrong or the capacity wrong, we will find that the equipment can be set up without sufficient local input or controls.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I warn the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) not to be tempted down the road of telecommunications masts.

Christopher Chope: I shall not be, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, when we discuss planning and development orders, analogies with telecommunications masts may well be in order. However, that will be a decision for you to make at the time.
	There has been some levity and repartee, and I have seen letters from people who might be described as rather hysterical about the Bill, but there is a serious issue here. If we want public support for the principle of localised, decentralised energy generation, which is Conservative policy as I understand it, we should try to allay concerns by having a definition of microgeneration that is more in accord with what the ordinary person would regard as micro, rather than macro.
	My comments on electricity generation also apply to the production of heat. Think of the size of the equipment, plant and apparatus that would have to be installed to capture enough solar energy to produce 45kW thermal. Can we really describe that as microgeneration?

Malcolm Wicks: Perhaps it will help the hon. Gentleman if I make it clear that the provision is designed to cover not only households, but community schemes. That is why the 50kW threshold was considered appropriate.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, but I am confused. Under clause 16, the maxima for the generation of electricity applicable to community energy schemes are not 50 kW and 45 kW thermal, but 20MW and 100 MW thermal.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend has stumbled across an important part of the Bill. If, for simplicity, we say that one house uses 1kW, amendment No. 39, in effect, provides that a group of 50 houses could be covered by a scheme; but clause 16 allows up to 20MW, or 20,000kW per scheme, which would supply 20,000 houses. Surely the point of the debate is to seek justification of the 50kW limit, when it would seem sensible to reduce the limit to 1kW or perhaps 5kW and thus seriously define the micro in microgeneration.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I hope that our combined forces will prompt a response from our hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle.

Gregory Barker: I think that everyone here is labouring under a misapprehension. I understand that the average household consumes about 10kW of electricity. The case that my hon. Friend is making is fundamentally flawed, the scale on which his argument is based is incorrect and the premise that he is advancing is nonsense.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is long on assertions; I hope that he can justify the assertion that he has just made. According to my information, average household consumption of electricity is in the order of 3.6kW. Obviously individual figures vary, and it may be that my hon. Friend's house uses much more than 3.6kW, but my understanding is that domestic energy use averages 4,700kWh per annum. I do not pretend to be an expert; those figures are produced by the British Wind Energy Association, and a document in front of me confirms them.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend continues to labour under a misapprehension. We are referring to heat and electricity.

Christopher Chope: I do not understand my hon. Friend's point. I am talking about 3.6kW of energy being used each year, yet under the Bill generation up to 45kW is described as microgeneration.

Alan Whitehead: One is output, the other is capacity.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry, but because of the rustling of papers I could not hear what the hon. Gentleman said.

Alan Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is talking about household electricity use, which is output. In the context of the installation of microgeneration devices, he is referring to capacity.

Christopher Chope: Maximum capacity, rather than the amount that is actually produced?

Alan Whitehead: The two should not be confused.

Christopher Chope: One could have a large power station with enormous capacity measured in gigawatts whose output is very small because it is being run at far less than capacity, but that does not answer my question: why allow capacity of 50kW when capacity of only 1kW or 3 kW is needed to produce the power for an individual household?
	Our debate today is beginning to illustrate the fact that when we have a Bill that is the subject of a large degree of consensus, it does not receive in Standing Committee the proper scrutiny and examination that can be achieved on the Floor of the House or during the Committee stage of an ordinary public Bill, when those who are concerned about the Bill or sceptical serve on the Committee alongside those who are enthusiastic about it, with the result that a real debate is had. Perhaps we shall be able to resolve the problems by the time we get to Third Reading.
	The British Wind Energy Association believes that its calculation is correct, and I find it hard to understand why it should be wrong. I am looking through "Calculations for wind energy statistics" to try to address the point that has been put to me. My intellectual understanding of the matter is being challenged and I do not want that challenge to go unanswered. My hon. Friend has asserted that the average UK household use of energy is much higher than I said. I do not know whether the figure of average domestic energy use of 4,700kWh per annum is incorrect, or what he thinks should be put in its place. As I understand it, if efficiency is close to 100 per cent. one needs less capacity than one would with less efficient generators such as wind turbines, which are only 0.3 per cent. efficient because of the inconsistent nature of wind. Most types of generators have a capacity of 0.5 per cent. If the average home uses 4,700 kWh a year, the generators can provide power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said, for 5,000 households. For example, a 1MWe wind turbine can supply energy to 559.1 homes.
	The Minister defended himself by saying that the definitions of microgeneration in the Government amendments of 50kW and 45kW are set high to meet the provisions of clause 16. I hope that he accepts that the community energy schemes dealt with in that clause are subject to a much higher maximum, so Government amendment No. 39 should apply to domestic household microgeneration, not the promotion of community energy schemes.

Nigel Evans: In his discussion of microgeneration my hon. Friend has referred to wind power. I declare my interest as president of Country Guardian, which opposes the littering of the countryside with wind turbines and, indeed, their siting in any other inappropriate place. What size of wind turbines are we talking about? Can they be placed anywhere, including rural areas?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into the debate on the next group of amendments.

Christopher Chope: You have stolen my thunder, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I was going to say exactly the same thing. However, my hon. Friend has raised a pertinent issue for the next debate.
	The Minister has caused a great deal of confusion, because he said that the maximum is designed to promote community energy schemes, and will apply to groups of houses or flats or small communities comprising large numbers of households. However, in the provision, microgeneration applies to individual households or households within the curtilage of a dwelling house.

Eric Forth: That was my reading of the Bill. Clause 9(6) explicitly says that a dwelling house
	"does not include a building containing one or more flats, or a flat contained within such a building",
	and it goes on to define a flat. It is not until clause 16, as my hon. Friend said, that community energy projects appear in the Bill. It is therefore important to maintain the distinction between the so-called microgeneration required for domestic dwellings and so-called community energy projects. I am sure that that distinction will emerge much more clearly as the debate proceeds.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is right. I shall not press the point any further, because I hope that when we debate the amendment that I have tabled to clause 16 he will be able to explain that there is an even higher maximum for microgeneration under that clause than there is under Government amendment No. 52.

Philip Hollobone: Would the Government not be in a better position to promote community energy schemes if they lowered the limit for individual residential householders? Householders would appear to be in a good position to receive permission for a wind turbine 50 times the size of the turbine covered by the amendments. If the limit were lowered there would be more incentive for neighbourhoods and communities to get together and establish their own neighbourhood generation.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is right. On 13 March, Ceres Power issued the following press release:
	"Ceres Power, the AIM-quoted fuel cell group, announces that it has taken a major step in commercialising its technology with the achievement of a critical milestone. The Company has successfully designed, built and tested a 1 kW fuel cell stack (the 'Ceres Stack') generating sufficient power for the average home."
	Ceres Power thinks that a 1kW fuel cell stack will generate enough power for the average home, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle asserted that we need 10kW. An AIM-listed company says that a small, lightweight fuel cell which, I believe, almost fits into the palm of one's hand, can deliver 1kW. Surely, it is not so out of touch as to underestimate by a factor of 10 the power needs of the average home? If my hon. Friend is right, one would have to buy 10 of those compact fuel cells to supply one household's fuel needs. I hope that we can get to the bottom of the matter because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering suggested, if we want to educate and encourage people to use microgeneration—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has given a strong lead on that—we must ensure that the natives do not get restless.
	We do not want people to think that they can engage in an industrial process in their back garden that would enable them to sell 95 per cent. of their output. Jam makers are subject to regulations that prevent them from selling surplus jam at Women's Institute markets. Why, then, should individuals be allowed to generate 49kW of energy and sell it to the national grid while they keep 1kW for themselves?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is rehearsing arguments that we have already heard.

Christopher Chope: I certainly would not want to rehearse any arguments again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that, having listened to our debate, the Minister will explain the difference between the provisions of what he described as technical amendments and the much higher limits in clause 16. I hope that he will engage in constructive debate on the importance of not alarming the citizens of this country with the prospect of much larger generating units being sited in back gardens or elsewhere.
	This has been a useful debate. I am glad that last week the Minister accepted that there was a defect in the Bill, which led to the introduction of Government amendment No. 80.When the Minister responds, I hope that he will address my concern that the definition of greenhouse gas emissions in the context of dynamic demand technologies in clause 15, which is the subject of amendment No. 80, is consequential on Government amendment No. 50, which we debated last week. That introduced a definition of greenhouse gas in clause 23 covering any of the six gases specified in the Kyoto protocol. Surely technology that increases one greenhouse gas but reduces another is not necessarily good technology. Do we not want the impact of technology on each greenhouse gas to be measured? My fear—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that amendment No. 80 would allow the Government to look at the overall impact on all six gases, rather than measuring the impact on each of the greenhouse gases separately. You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not propose to engage again in the debate about whether water vapour is a greenhouse gas.

Malcolm Wicks: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to one of the points that emerged in the latter stages of the discussion. I will not go into the sticky business of Women's Institute jam because we are focusing on global warming and the planet's chance to have jam tomorrow, so let us stick with that.
	Questions were raised about the differences in the definitions of microgeneration and community schemes. Perhaps I can help the House. Microgeneration is for households and community schemes—for example, solar panels on church halls, or the wind turbine that I saw on the building at the Daventry country park when I was asked to visit it—whereas the community energy schemes referred to in clause 16 are intended to cover both small scale community installations that could be classed as microgeneration, and larger schemes such as district heating.

Eric Forth: Can the Minister say a little more about what a large scheme might be in this context? We are talking about microgeneration, which would be understood by the layman in a particular way. Now that the Minister has spoken of a large scheme in the context of community projects, could he give the House some idea of the scale? What sort of size of building or installation does he have in mind when he talks about a large scheme?

Malcolm Wicks: The technology would determine which section applied to the scheme. It could be a new school. I was scheduled today to open the new Ashburton school in Croydon in my borough—the Ashburton learning village, which has extensive photovoltaics. I rather regret in some respects that I cannot undertake my duties in my own borough today because of the delays that have been caused. The scheme could be a new library, a big new community centre, a new church or church hall or a sports hall. I hope the House understands that those are the kind of developments that we are trying to cover.

Eric Forth: It is important that we have this dialogue. Is the Minister saying that he believes that a photovoltaic installation, even on the roof of a school, would contribute to community energy in the sense in which I understand the Bill to refer to it?

Malcolm Wicks: I was talking about the range of possibilities. Some schemes could involve mini combined heat and power installations, for example. There is a range of heat technologies. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to explore some of them in his constituency, just as I hoped to find out more today if I had been able to put principle into practice by helping to open the Ashburton learning village. I hope I have provided clarification.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8
	 — 
	Functions of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority in Relation to Microgeneration

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 6, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert
	'the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006.".'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]

Christopher Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 6, line 15, leave out clause 9.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 13, in page 6, line 25 [Clause 9], at end insert—
	'(2A)   In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of—
	(a)   safeguarding conservation areas;
	(b)   protecting visual amenity;
	(c)   reducing noise; and
	(d)   avoiding risks to health and safety.'.
	No. 70, in page 6, line 25 [Clause 9], at end insert—
	'(2A)   In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a)   such body or bodies as appear to him to be representative of local authorities;
	(b)   the Royal Institute of British Architects;
	(c)   the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors;
	(d)   the Campaign to Protect Rural England; and
	(e)   any other bodies or persons he considers appropriate.'.
	No. 71, in page 7, line 3 [Clause 9], at end insert— '"local authorities" has the same meaning as in section [Local authorities to have regard to information on energy measures in exercising functions].'.

Christopher Chope: In addition to speaking to my amendment No. 32, I shall say a few words about the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which qualify clause 9 by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to, among other things, four desirable outcomes when carrying a review of permitted development orders.
	Before considering the detail of what is proposed, I shall set the matter in context. The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 contains important safeguards and restrictions on the ability of a landowner to carry out development on his land. Those restrictions are imposed on the grounds of amenity, and are a significant restriction on the principle that an Englishman's home is his castle and that he can do in it and on his land whatever he wishes.
	Planning provides community protection for local people who are concerned about intrusive, insensitive and antisocial behaviour. It is reflected in Government guidance emanating in the form of policy planning guidance and appears in the latest manifestation of that—regional spatial strategies. The regional spatial strategy for the south-west of England, which is of interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on the Front Bench, has been discussed. It is very controversial. It must be submitted to the Department by the end of March, and as I understand it—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting and controversial the regional spatial strategy might be, but it is not relevant to the amendment under discussion.

Christopher Chope: I shall return to section 52(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Philip Hollobone: I am listening to my hon. Friend's words with interest. Last time we discussed the Bill, we had the benefit of the presence of a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to deal with development issues. Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that the Minister is not present today?

Christopher Chope: I do, but perhaps the Minister did not expect us to reach this group of amendments so quickly. She may be on her way to the Chamber. I know from my own experience when I was a Minister with responsibility for planning matters that this is a technical area, and a Minister for Housing and Planning can speak with much more authority than the Minister for Energy, although I accept that the hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about most things.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is in her constituency, where many of us would like to be on a Friday. The fact that I am in the Chamber to represent the entire Government shows that we do not just talk joined-up, we do it.

Christopher Chope: I am glad that the Government make provision for Ministers to attend the House on a Friday, because the Government and the House decided that we should meet on various Fridays during the year. It would be rather bizarre if—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are meeting on a Friday and we are discussing a particular set of amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Christopher Chope: Section 52(2)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 refers to a development order, which
	"itself grants planning permission for development specified in the order or for development of any class specified."
	In other words, the development order provides for planning permission to be granted without any notice having to be given, without any consultation with those who are or may be affected by it, without any need for a planning application, and without the involvement of any locally elected councillors—just like the planning-free environment which, to an extent, prevailed before the advent of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947.
	A permitted development order can therefore be a very far-reaching curtailment of environmental protection.Clause 9 seems designed to facilitate further and far-reaching curtailment of environmental protection. That is why I am very concerned about the clause and have tabled an amendment seeking to remove it from the Bill. I recognise that the issue creates a dilemma for my hon. Friends. To what extent should we jeopardise one part of the environment, such as visual amenity, in order to benefit another part, perhaps by seeking to reduce global warming? Those are just the sort of issues that we should debate. They are not black and white, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst agrees that inherent conflicts and contradictions on environmental issues are best resolved locally, by locally elected representatives. Of course, that is what can be done under planning law, but could not be done under the general development order relaxation proposed in the clause.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend share my unease about the danger of making a presumption in favour of the ability to install what are now rather loosely known as microgenerating plants? The danger is that that will enable more and more such installations to be established, perhaps even against the wishes of individuals or local planning authorities? It is that change of presumption that is key to the provisions, which is why we have now probably got to the crux of the Bill and of the effect that it could have on our communities and in our constituencies.

Christopher Chope: That is absolutely right; it is the dilemma that I am hoping the majority of Members of the House will agree should be resolved in favour of localism.
	I should like to illustrate that point by referring to the recently published document "Built to Last", which was produced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. That document, which I shall not quote extensively, sets out "Our aims" as follows:
	"To improve the quality of life for everyone through . . . a dynamic economy . . . a strong society
	and
	"a sustainable environment where we enhance the beauty of our surroundings and protect the future of our planet."
	We will not enhance the beauty of our surroundings if we allow monstrosities otherwise known as microgenerating plants to proliferate in our residential neighbourhoods without the need for individual planning consent.

Philip Hollobone: This is a very serious issue. If a planning application for 2,000 houses were made in my constituency, for example, the Government might take the view that the best way of providing energy for the houses, on the basis of the figures before us today, would be a 25 MW community energy scheme. Presumably, such a scheme would require planning permission in the normal way. If permitted development orders are introduced, the alternative is that 400 wind turbines could be constructed on an estate of 2,000 houses. Such a development might be beneficial in terms of climate change, but in terms of visual amenity there would be many different views as to whether it was acceptable.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope that he will contribute further to the debate in due course, if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eric Forth: I hope that, as my hon. Friend develops his argument—indeed, our hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) may wish to elaborate as well—somebody somewhere will give me an idea of the size of installation that we are talking about. It is in the context of the clause and amendments before us, in respect of which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, most helpfully guided us earlier, that we will properly consider the size of wind turbines, community energy plants and the like. If we do nothing else, we should make people outside this place aware of the direction in which we are going in the name of so-called microgeneration and what they may end up having in their communities in that context.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall come to the size of some of the plants, although without the ability to use visual aids in the Chamber, I shall have to rely on the powers of description rather than on anything else.
	As it stands, clause 9 is about circumventing the local planning system, despite the fact that planning is deemed by most of our constituents to be the most important responsibility of local government. That is why people argue for keeping local councils, because it is the local councillors who are in touch with people's concerns about planning issues in particular. The importance of planning as a local government function was borne out by all the research done by the Local Government Commission for England when we last looked at reorganising local authorities and considered whether we should abolish district councils in favour of unitary authorities or county councils.
	I shall take the House rather slowly through clause 9, because it is actually very sinister. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who is assiduous in considering such matters, will try to follow the provisions with me. Clause 9(1) states:
	"The Secretary of State . . . shall . . . .carry out a review of the effect in England of development orders made by virtue of section 59(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990".
	It says nothing about whether the Secretary of State has to consult anyone. Subsection (2) states:
	"The purpose of the review is to enable the Secretary of State to form a view as to what provision (or further provision) such development orders should make"
	about the installation of microgeneration equipment. There is no reference to what evidence, if any, should be considered by the Minister, and neither is there any requirement that he should publicise any evidence.
	The most sinister and dangerous element of the clause is that the purpose of the review is not objective or neutral. As line 22 makes clear, the purpose is
	"to facilitate development in England . . . of equipment, apparatus or appliances for microgeneration",
	irrespective of whether such development has an adverse impact on the beauty of our surroundings or visual amenity. I can almost hear the promoter of the Bill or perhaps the Minister saying, "Don't worry; once the review is published, it will be possible for local authorities, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the Wildlife Trusts and so on to give their input." Such a common-sense safeguard is, however, specifically precluded by subsection (3), which states that
	"the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of the review, including his view . . . and the reasons for it."
	There is no provision for consultation on his conclusions. Even worse, there is no provision to allow for modification of his view as expressed in the review report, because subsection (4) contains this requirement:
	"The report must also set out what provision . . . if any, the Secretary of State proposes to make in development orders . . . in consequence of the review."
	The clause goes on to state:
	"Where the Secretary of State proposes to make provision . . . in development orders in consequence of the review, he must . . . exercise his powers under section 59 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990",
	and he must do so as soon as is "reasonably practicable". In other words, there is no provision for parliamentary discussion, public debate or consultation. That is all too familiar from this Government.

Nigel Evans: I have grave concerns about wind turbines for a number of reasons. In a number of countries where they have proliferated, rare bird species have diminished, because of birds being killed by flying into the turbines. Is my hon. Friend telling the House that there is no opportunity for bodies or individuals who care about rare bird species that may migrate into their areas or pass through them to make representations? Can there be no representations from anyone who is concerned about the placement of wind turbines?

Christopher Chope: I am saying that. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that concern. The clause makes it clear that there is no provision for parliamentary discussion, public debate or consultation on the issue.

Eric Forth: I can give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). If he looks at my amendment No. 70, he will find that I am attempting to provide exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is asking for. Perhaps we should have a vote when the time comes. I think that the House should express its view at some point, as there is far too much cosy consensus breaking out. I hope that my hon. Friend will refer to my amendment, as I do not take sole possession of it.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will indeed refer to his amendment, but I thought it would be helpful to try to progress logically and start by debating the lead amendment, which would leave out clause 9 altogether.
	One way of summing up clause 9 would be to say that under its provisions the Secretary of State is expressly prohibited from listening to anyone or modifying the outcome of his review in any way. That is rather reminiscent of the Labour slogan articulated by the late Lord Shawcross after old Labour got into office after the war—"We are the masters now." The Secretary of State is the master and it is not going to be possible for anybody to intervene in any process to say, "Hold on a minute—are you sure this is actually the right thing to do in terms of the environment?"

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that those in the environmental lobby sometimes claim that they are the masters now and resent even debating some of the policies that they advocate?

Christopher Chope: That is the case with some of them, but not all. If my right hon. Friend had read the open debate in the columns of one of the national newspapers within the past 10 days, he would have seen very different positions being taken on the subject by people all of whom would describe themselves as having the best possible environmental credentials. They can agree to disagree, or strongly disagree, with each other on these issues. That is why it is all the more important that there should be provision for somebody other than just the Secretary of State, whoever he happens to be at the time, to get involved in debating whether permitted development orders should be allowed to be used so that these very large generating plants can be constructed without the need for any planning permission or any chance for local involvement in whether they are a good idea.
	What size or nature of development could be constructed under a permitted development order under the clause without planning consent? That is the question that several of us are concerned about, and I will try my best to answer it. I know that in due course the promoter of the Bill wants to enter into the debate to give us some assurances. We do not allow permitted development orders to deal with such things as bus stops, bus shelters, street cabinets or even telecomms masts, although we all know from our constituency casework just how controversial those can be. Not long ago, I attended a meeting of the Greater London authority, where no less a person than the Mayor of London answered a question about the location of a bus stop in Richmond. He took the view that he, as the regional authority leader, should be the sole determinant of where that bus stop should be positioned. Under the clause, we would not have that safeguard even for a large microgenerating plant, because it would all be dealt with under permitted development orders. What would our constituents have said in the past, before the health and visual amenity aspects became big issues, if any Government or Secretary of State said, "We think that all these telecomms masts should be put up without the need for any planning permission to be obtained, because it is a jolly good thing that people should be able to communicate by mobile phone"? There would have been an enormous outcry.
	I suspect that at the moment people have not woken up to the exact implications of the Bill as regards microgeneration equipment, because they think of it as being on a very small scale. When they do wake up to it, it may be too late, because by then clause 9 will already be on the statute book and the Secretary of State, without anybody being able to constrain him, will have already passed the necessary orders under the permitted development process and these developments will be outwith the control of local people and their locally elected representatives.

Philip Hollobone: I am very supportive of wind power. A new wind farm in Kettering, Burton Wold, is providing electricity for local people. However, it is affecting many local people's television reception. If the Bill succeeds and lots of these wind turbines are put up, people may become concerned about the effects on their environment. It is right that this House should debate these issues now before it is passed into law.

Christopher Chope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We normally find in terms of legislation that prevention is better than cure. It is no good coming back later to try to amend it, because it will be too late. Some of us have been receiving representations from constituents who are concerned about the contents of some recent legislation, and we are having to say to them that it is too late to do anything about it because it has already gone through. We should anticipate the concerns that will arise. I like to think that all Members, particularly those of us who attend on Fridays, are closely in touch with their constituents' concerns.
	People are worried about how big these structures would be. According to the article in The Daily Telegraph of 13 March, the wind turbine that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to fit to his house has translucent rotor blades that are 1.1m in diameter, and it will generate just 400W of electricity. The same newspaper report referred to the Minister's house in Croydon being fitted out with a 1 kW turbine—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing the amendment, which is about permitted development orders. We have already heard about the developments involving the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister.

Christopher Chope: If clause 9 remains in the Bill, under a permitted development order it will be possible for all these pieces of generating equipment, whether they belong to a Member of this House or somebody outside, to be constructed without the need for any planning permission. That is why I was about to mention the dimensions of the turbine which, according to the press report, will be placed on the Minister's premises.

Malcolm Wicks: indicated dissent.

Christopher Chope: The Minister is shaking his head before he has even heard what I am going to say. The article said that it will have blades that are 1.75m in diameter. In the old-fashioned language of the metric martyrs, that is about 5 ft 9 in. That is a fairly significant size. However, that is a very small capacity turbine compared with the maximum 50kW capacity that is permitted under the Bill. Under clause 9, microgeneration as defined in the Government amendment to the Energy Act 2004 could have a capacity to generate 50kW. If the Minister were to table an amendment to redefine it as relating to a maximum capacity of 1kW, that might allay many concerns. However, clause 9, coupled with the provisions about the maximum capacity being 50kW, will put our constituents in grave jeopardy and cause them enormous anxiety.

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend has framed this important argument excellently. However, is not he guilty of presuming too much about the review's outcome? Having listened to him carefully, I have heard a solid case for improving the clause through the process that underpins the review, but I have not yet heard a case for removing the clause, which is the purpose of the amendment. Will he make that case?

Christopher Chope: I am making the case. If the clause was not part of the Bill, putting microgenerating plant in one's garden or attaching it to one's house would be a matter for planning and subject to the usual planning laws. In that case, one would make an application, fill in a form, pay a fee to the local authority and discuss it with the local planning authority, which in due course would develop a policy in its local plan process. That might cover the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) made about whether we should have many individual pieces of generating plant or whether one larger piece of community generating plant would be preferable. The planning process could deal with all those issues. If individuals wanted to install many pieces of plant, councillors could end up discussing the applications. They could ask questions, such as that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about the implications for bird strike, the butterfly population and so on. However, if the clause remains in the Bill, none of those opportunities would arise. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) is in an urban area, where proper protection under planning laws is even more crucial, because people live close to each other.

Eric Forth: I hope that my hon. Friend has not left the subject of size. For the benefit of us non-metric people, will he please tell us not only the overall diameter of the allegedly small wind turbine that will be positioned on or near a dwelling house, but how high it might have to be? I presume that height and size are important when considering visual and possible sound intrusion. It would be helpful if we could get some of those facts on the record so that people are under no illusions about what the Bill asks us to do.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend asks about height. I am not sure whether I have much information about maximum height. However, I have a picture, which I cannot show hon. Members, but it depicts a 12.5MW biomass plant at a place called Westfield. It resembles the cement works at Westbury. I do not know whether hon. Members are familiar with the big cement works in the countryside at Westbury. It has an enormous chimney, which rises 100 m into the sky, and large warehouse-type buildings, which could, at a guess, be 50 ft to 100 ft high. There is another picture of a smaller, 5 MW plant—the Goosey lodge plant. That resembles a mini version of the Fawley refinery. I hope that that gives some visual impression of what such plant would be like.

Nigel Evans: The applications need to be considered before full planning, but not only for reasons of size, which is important. We worried about birds, but kids playing in backyards could be affected if the blades are large. There could be a problem, depending on where the equipment was sited. Let us ensure that there are proper rules and regulations. Local authorities can then consider where equipment will be sited. I must—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention or a speech? Perhaps he could bring his remarks to a close.

Nigel Evans: I shall, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most common problems that we encounter in our surgeries is neighbour disputes? When neighbours cannot—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We know that neighbour disputes can end in violence and, indeed, death. I spent some time in a previous Parliament discussing the frustrations that people can experience living on each side of a hedge.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not need to hear about the hon. Gentleman's frustrations in a previous life.

Philip Hollobone: rose—

Christopher Chope: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.

Philip Hollobone: We have heard that the diameter of a 400W wind turbine is 1.1m and that that of a 1kW wind turbine is 1.75m. [Interruption.] I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed that we are being gesticulated at from the other side of the Chamber. The promoter and seconder of the Bill and the Minister are present. Surely someone can tell us what the diameter of the blades of a 50kW wind turbine would be.

Christopher Chope: I hope that we shall get closer to an answer to that pertinent point. Whatever the size, we know that it will be pretty large—or there may be many wind turbines. That could amount to the same thing. I can envisage that, in order to generate 50kW, one might have to install photovoltaic tiles and erect a fence that was 15ft high and 30ft long next door to one's neighbours.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman has invited me on a couple of occasions to give my views of what the Bill might allow. Allowing a fence of the size that he outlined or, indeed, a 12.5MW biomass power station to be included under the permitted development orders would not be the desired outcome of the clause. I intend to deal with the matter in my contribution. If he is satisfied with that, perhaps he would be prepared to let other hon. Members respond to his points at an early stage in the debate.

Christopher Chope: That is a helpful point and I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's contribution, to which I shall have the opportunity to respond. I believe that the best way of tackling the problem is by leaving out clause 9.
	Clause 9 currently discriminates against installations within the curtilage of a dwelling house, but not buildings that contain one or more flats. I hope that the Minister will deal with that point. If one's neighbour lived in a flat, one would have no worries, but if one's neighbour lived in a bungalow or a detached, semi-detached or terraced house, there are potential problems. My home in London, where I stay during the week, is a terraced house and the impact on my quality of life if my neighbours began installing such equipment in their gardens could be significant.

Philip Hollobone: If one were in favour of permitted development orders, would not it appear extraordinary if blocks of flats were excluded, because their roofs would be perfect, if one were so minded, for siting a wind turbine to provide efficient energy for the dwellers.

Christopher Chope: Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I hope the Minister will tackle. Why are blocks of flats—or houses that are converted into two flats—excluded when ordinary houses with land attached are included? Of course, one can get big converted houses, which stand in substantial plots of land. Under the provisions, they could not take advantage of the permitted development rights, but those living cheek by jowl in small bungalows could.
	Amendment No. 13 limits the clause in the sense that
	"the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability"
	of four factors. The amendment, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, would be better than nothing. However, I warn him that the expression "have regard to" is a weak phrase, as we discovered in the challenge to the Government requirements on school admissions. That is why the expression in the Education and Inspections Bill, which had its Second Reading this week, has been tightened.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have debated the Education and Inspections Bill. We are now debating the hon. Gentleman's amendment to clause 9.

Christopher Chope: Absolutely, and I was addressing my remarks to the expression "have regard to" in amendment No. 13. That expression has been the subject of judicial decision making. As a consequence of that, I ask my right hon. Friend to think again about whether it goes far enough. One cannot ignore it and proceed as before, as the High Court recently ruled.

Eric Forth: I plead guilty in that sense, but if we must have the clause—perhaps we will accept my hon. Friend's amendment—one decision that we might have to make, and we will have to make it on the hoof, is whether my modest and perhaps rather ineffectual amendment is at least a gesture in the right direction because it could improve the clause.

Christopher Chope: I certainly agree, but I have another reservation about amendment No. 13. By specifying some factors, it could be taken that others are excluded—for example, the need to safeguard the green belt, to preserve the setting of listed buildings and to protect wildlife, the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). By not including those provisions, it might be thought that they are excluded. Perhaps that is a slightly technical, whinging point that it ill behoves me to make, especially in respect of an amendment so ably drafted by my right hon. Friend.
	What I like about amendment No. 13 are the specific references to visual amenity, noise and health and safety. We discussed visual amenity quite a lot in this short debate, but noise is a big unknown factor. Nothing in the Bill would limit the use of equipment at night. We know how sensitive our constituents are to night-time noise. I have personal experience of that. We once had a family house quite close to a farm that operated equipment late at night to dry bulbs produced in west Cornwall for the early English spring market. The noise was highly intrusive, but the equipment could run at night under permitted development powers because its use was related to agriculture. There was nothing that a concerned neighbour could do, except to plead with the farmer's common sense and to ask him to limit the use of the machines to daytime or to put in proper noise insulating material.
	The other good thing about amendment No. 13 is the reference to health and safety. We are talking about big pieces of generating equipment, which may have quite high voltage, especially if they transfer energy to the national grid. All the electricity poles in my constituency have had little red signs put on them with a yellow marking that says, "This is dangerous", and barbed wire has been put around them to protect them against intruders. Do we expect the equipment to be put on land adjacent to the public highway? How will we ensure that children, vandals and so on do not trespass and endanger their health and safety?

Eric Forth: In a sense, the discussion takes us back to the debate on sources of energy and the list that we considered. Up to now, my hon. Friend has rightly talked about the visual and noise effects of wind turbines. We have also touched on photovoltaics—solar panels—which are probably the least intrusive pieces of equipment. However, as he rightly explains, once we get into biomass, biofuels, fuel cells and other more exotic and esoteric sources of energy, the safety element becomes of great importance. Their location and the safety factors surely must be taken into consideration. That was partly what I had in mind when I drafted my little amendment No. 13.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend is right, and it is why his amendment has more in its favour than it has against it. I do not mean to damn it with faint praise; safety is a significant element.
	My right hon. Friend also tabled amendment No. 70, which was not on the selection list last week because it had not reached the daylight and been exposed for public discussion. It reflects the concern that I expressed that the clause as drafted does not make provision for consultation. The amendment spells out the requirement for that.
	I said that I would not be too long on this group of amendments, so I sum up by saying that surely the best protection is provided by ordinary planning law, which requires consultation with neighbours, residents' associations, parish councils and town councils. It gives the decision-making power to elected local councillors. Surely that is what we should be urging on the Government. We want to increase the safeguards, rather than reduce the protections.

Mark Lazarowicz: I shall speak briefly. This part of the Bill originated in an amendment tabled in Committee, and was not included in my original version. I am pleased that both Ministers and Conservative Front Benchers have made suggestions that have been incorporated in the Bill, and I am pleased that it has proved to be a suitable vehicle for such improvements.
	When I said that I would speak briefly, I did not use the word in the sense in which it was applied to the 44 minutes during which the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) made what was described as "not a long speech". The hon. Gentleman did, however, raise an important point. Clearly, clause 9 could have different effects depending on how it was applied. I would certainly oppose it if I thought that it would result in "monstrosities" in people's back gardens, with 12.5MW biomass plants being described as microgeneration plants.
	I am aware that in the debate on renewable energy, and wind power in particular, there are extreme views on both sides. There are those who oppose any form of wind turbine, no matter how large or small or whether it is in the country or on someone's house; and there are wind power enthusiasts who would favour allowing any wind turbine anywhere, whatever its size and wherever it was located. I do not support either of those extremes. The clause is intended to make it possible, in the right circumstances, for microgeneration installations to be placed on people's houses without the unnecessary bureaucracy that is too often involved at present. That bureaucracy varies from authority to authority, which lessens the possibility of wider use of the technology.
	The application will have to differ from community to community. What may be possible in some areas or communities will probably not be possible in conservation areas, or areas with particular historical significance. That is why I think that the review proposed in clause 9 is essential. We cannot possibly specify every single way in which the powers will apply in every single type of community. I therefore think that the permitted development order procedure is appropriate. I trust that the Minister will tell us how he will consult, how he expects the clause to be implemented, and what principles he will apply to its implementation.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch will be satisfied with whatever the Minister says in his response. He is right to ask questions, and if he is not satisfied with the answers he will be able to vote in due course. I repeat, however, that if we are serious about allowing microgeneration to be used more widely so that people can take advantage of its benefits, we must not allow too many bureaucratic obstacles to interfere with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who tabled the original amendment in Committee, may speak from his own experience. However, given that the clause merely suggests that a review should be conducted and laid before the House, and does not allow development orders to be made independently, I hope that Members will reject the amendment if the hon. Member for Christchurch presses it to a vote.

Gregory Barker: Although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) spoke at great length, he expressed sensible and justifiable concerns that might well be shared by anyone who approached clause 9 in a sceptical frame of mind. I have no doubt, however, that his worries are unconnected with the intention behind the clause. I welcome what I believe to be its true purpose, which—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said—is to permit the installation of domestic appliances, probably the size of a television aerial or satellite dish, which are unobtrusive in any normal sense of the word.

Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend has used the word "probably". Is that not part of the problem? Is it not better to establish clarity than to leave any doubt whatever? As my hon. Friend will know, we have sometimes passed legislation whose intention has been twisted out of all recognition in practice.

Gregory Barker: That is a good point, but this is not enabling legislation. The clause simply asks the Minister to produce a review, which would have to be laid before the House. That would be the proper time to engage fully in the debate on which we are embarking now, and to apply the necessary scrutiny and ask the questions that are being asked today. Once the review had been presented to Parliament, a statutory instrument would be required, which would have to be debated and, if necessary, voted on in the usual way. At that point I am sure that the sensible suggestions in the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the parties whom the Secretary of State should consult and the concerns that he should take into account in his review—such as safeguarding conservation areas, protecting visual amenity, reducing noise and avoiding risks to health and safety—will be properly debated. All we doing now is beginning the process, not reaching a conclusion, prescribing behaviour or forestalling in any way the sensible, rational debate that must follow. We believe that if microgeneration is to enter the mass market and become accessible to the domestic householder, a way must be found of making it just as easy to erect small domestic appliances as it is to erect a satellite dish or television aerial. Therefore, I do not believe that those of us who strongly support the Bill would be well served by the rejection of the clause.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind comments about some of the points that I made. However, can he spell out how the Bill would be made worse if the clause were omitted completely?

Gregory Barker: It would be worse because there would then be no compulsion on the Secretary of State to review the permitted development status, and it is important that that status is reviewed, for the reasons that I have set out. We need to streamline the process by which microgeneration technologies can be taken up and used by the domestic user. It is absurd that things the size of a television aerial are subject to the current planning laws. It is not the intention of anyone that a 50kW wind turbine be erected in the garden of a bungalow in Bexhill. As we are at the very beginning of the process, we cannot expect the Bill to prescribe every single outcome of the Minister's review. I accept that it is broadly drafted, but I hope that the Minister may be able to reassure us that the review will be conducted under sensible terms of reference and with a clear purpose in mind—to enable the fast-tracking of small domestic apparatus, not the nightmare scenarios that my hon. Friend has suggested.
	Opposition Front Benchers do not oppose the clause, and we wholeheartedly support the Bill, but we are mindful of the considerations that have been raised.

Malcolm Wicks: I thought that it would be useful if I intervened at this stage. Amendment No. 32 would remove clause 9—an important clause that was added in Committee on 9 February. Clause 9 requires a review of permitted development rights. That will allow the Secretary of State to form a view about the need for any further rights to facilitate the installation of microgeneration equipment on houses.

David Howarth: I wish to correct what the Minister has just said. Clause 9 would not "allow" such a review, because such a review could happen now, under existing powers in the planning legislation. Instead, clause 9 would require such a review, and that is the important advantage of it. But it does not change what could be done now.

Malcolm Wicks: Let me continue by saying that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been conducting a review of householder development consents. The review was set up to address the problem that the planning legislation governing minor consents is unnecessarily complex, possibly too constricting and may be interpreted in different ways by local planning authorities across the country. The ODPM proposes to look at ways of simplifying the relevant sections of the secondary legislation, known as the general permitted development order, to make it easier for households to install microgeneration technology without the need for a planning application.
	12 noon
	The Government continue to support clause 9, as we want to make it easier for householders to install microgeneration equipment. That is its purpose. There is clearly some confusion, but this clause is about facilitating small-scale microgeneration, a kilowatt or two. We are not talking about a provision that would allow one of those 50kW jobs to be installed in a suburban back garden. We thought that was obvious, but I am happy to suggest that my colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will write to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) setting out clearly the terms of the review so that there are no misconceptions.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Minister not understand that there is concern because of the definition of the capacity of microgeneration? If the Minister had come to the House today and said that this provision relates to microgeneration up to 1kW or 5kW, we might not be having a debate of this length. However, because we are placing a capacity of up to 50kW in the Bill, under PDOs that could, despite the Minister's good intentions, lead to the establishment of wind turbines that local residents might find unacceptable.

Malcolm Wicks: Perhaps foolishly, I was applying a common-sense test to this. No one can anticipate that, following the Deputy Prime Minister's review, such things would be allowed. If my judgment on common sense lets me down, I apologise to the House. We have to bring some sense of scale to this. It may be helpful if my colleague the Minister writes to the hon. Member for Christchurch on this point so that there can be no misconceptions.

Nigel Evans: Does the Minister recognise that there are more and less controversial microgeneration plans? Small solar panels on roofs would be acceptable to the vast majority of people in this country, yet certain wind turbines, even of a small scale, might be controversial, particularly to neighbours. Does the Minister recognise that there are two aspects of microgeneration?

Malcolm Wicks: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As colleagues are finding, progress and modernisation can be controversial, and there can be resistance. That is true for microgeneration, if the hon. Gentleman understands my meaning. These things are controversial, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will do a review to facilitate sensible-scale microgeneration. That is all we are saying. It is a red herring to think that we are talking about 50kW plants.

Mark Lazarowicz: An earlier intervention from the Opposition Back Benches suggested that the review might be carried out without any form of consultation. Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that there will be consultation in any review, as one would expect to be normal practice?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend encourages me to finish my speech. I have made the point that my colleague will write to the hon. Gentleman so that we can clarify these matters.
	Amendment No. 13 specifies things to which the Secretary of State should have regard when carrying out his review of permitted development orders. It goes without saying that the Secretary of State would conduct a thorough review, so a prescriptive list, such as this, is unnecessary. The listing of various bodies as consultees in amendment No. 70 is also unnecessary. When there is a consultation exercise on a planning matter, the ODPM invites comments from a great many organisations, including those that represent local authorities, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Campaign to Protect Rural England and other organisations with an interest in planning. That will already happen, so the amendment is unnecessary.
	I want to clarify a point that was raised about permitted development orders. Should the ODPM decide, following the review, that a new permitted development order is required in relation to microgeneration, the order will be tabled in the House. It will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, but the House will nevertheless have the opportunity to comment. That is in addition to the full consultation that will take place as part of the review.
	In summary, amendment No. 71 is consequential on the incorporation of amendment No. 70. I oppose the inclusion of amendments Nos. 32, 13, 70 and 71.

Christopher Huhne: I am certainly reassured by the Minister's answers, especially on the point about consultation. Members who raised that issue may have been unaware of the Cabinet Office code of practice on consultation, in which criterion 3 states clearly:
	"Efforts should be made to bring the consultation to the attention of all interested parties."
	I have no doubt that the Government will attempt to do that.

Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Christopher Huhne: No, because I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a great interest in absorbing large amounts of time.
	The key point is that no new powers for the Government are introduced by the clause. If the Government were minded to allow the building of monstrous wind turbines, biomass fuel plants or anything else under PDOs, they could do so already. The concerns expressed from the Conservative Back Benches seem completely unfounded. The clause introduces a requirement for a review of PDOs, which will then be brought to the House in the normal way—with a statutory instrument, which, as the Minister says, requires a negative resolution. That seems appropriate and is one of the reasons why we shall support the clause and the Bill.

Alan Whitehead: The purpose of the clause, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) has already suggested, is to examine whether it is possible to ensure that small-scale microgeneration equipment of various kinds can be installed by householders without their necessarily having to go through the full bureaucracy of the planning process.
	At present, authorities take a different view about the planning process for particular items of microgeneration; for example, in some local authority areas one may put solar tiles on one's roof without planning permission, while in others planning permission would be required, due to concerns arising from section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
	Similarly, if one erects a small wind turbine—we have heard about various people who are trying to do that, one of whom is me—some local authorities will say that all applications for miniature wind turbines on houses are subject to planning permission, but other authorities will not require planning permission, within particular constraints. The clause provides that if a review finds that a permitted development order is possible, after discussion in the House, the PDO will remove the requirement for the full planning process for a number of defined microgeneration devices.
	We have heard the idea expressed—I am sure by inadvertence or misunderstanding—that a 50kW wind turbine might be installed on a roof in Bromley, which would be a monstrosity and insupportable—

Mark Lazarowicz: In every sense of the word.

Alan Whitehead: Indeed, and might lead to other consequences.
	The provision suggests that the PDO mechanism does not actually work at present because, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the general permitted development order and section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 limit the scope of development orders in terms of the extent to which they may be mediated by
	"the approval of the local planning authority with respect to the design or external appearance of the buildings".
	The general permitted development order makes a number of points about the circumstances under which that may happen.
	For example, in local authorities generally, if a householder adds less than 15 per cent. to the curtilage of their property, that is not regarded as requiring planning permission. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is well aware of that from discussions that he has had in his constituency. In addition, there is a range of other considerations that cause certain things that are not fundamental to the extension, or the change of the appearance of the property, to remain outside the planning regulations. If one thinks about it for a moment, that is a good thing because otherwise no one could do anything without being snowed under by the requirement to have planning permission, and local authorities could not operate because every time that someone put a porch on their house, or some such, they would have to apply for planning permission.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, increasingly, local authorities will impose a condition on a planning consent which means that the applicant is not allowed in the future to rely on the provisions of the general development order?

Alan Whitehead: Yes indeed, and that underlines my point that there is a boundary on permitted development orders that local authorities can apply, and also, through the general permitted development order, a boundary on the extent to which permitted development orders apply in any event. If one applies that logic, a biomass plant might extend the curtilage of a particular properly by more than 15 per cent., which would be outside the terms of the general permitted development order. Similarly, if a wind turbine went well above the roofline or beyond the building line, that would also be beyond the terms of the general permitted development order, so there are boundaries anyway.
	The difference that is suggested is very modest indeed. It would simply clarify the terms under which microgeneration devices—which were not in existence when permitted development orders were first thought about in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990— might be attached by householders to their households, in the same way as, under other circumstances, they might introduce a roof extension or a porch to their house. The suggestion in clause 9 is that if a review agrees that that is a good idea, householders who wanted to put solar panels on the roof who, in other times and places, might have considered that it was necessary to apply for planning permission, would not after that general permitted development order was put in place have to do so in any local authority in the country, subject to all the conditions and the constraints that I have mentioned.
	The result for microgeneration would be that there would be clarity throughout the country in terms of what one could or could not do. A person who was installing a modest device would not have to go through the red tape. Cost is also involved. The price of a small wind turbine, such as the Leader of the Opposition is considering for his house, comes to about £1,500. As things stand, the Leader of the Opposition would have to spend perhaps £300 or £400 of that £1,500 on seeking planning permission, with all that that entails, to get that device on to his house.
	Our suggestion is both modest and economical. It takes out of the realm of red tape those modest devices within the overall constraint of permitted development orders that could aid microgeneration and thereby help householders to generate the power that they consume in their households without recourse to the national grid.

Mark Lazarowicz: Perhaps my hon. Friend would also confirm that special requirements under the procedure for permitted development orders, which apply, for example, to conservation areas and listed buildings, would in no way be set aside by the proposal.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The same applies when we consider the safety of such devices. The hon. Member for Christchurch painted a picture of almost Frankenstein proportions of large swathes of white electricity fizzing across the landscape as people put power into the national grid. The truth is that if one had a solar panel on one's roof that produced electricity when it was not being used in the house, a two-way meter could place current completely safely—without danger to small children, pets, or anyone else—into the national grid. The same would be true for other forms of microgeneration.
	I regret that several wild misapprehensions have been raised today, perhaps because of a lack of clarity or understanding about the proposals in clause 9. However, with the benefit of any reasonable consideration of how permitted development orders work, how a review might be undertaken and the extent of what is proposed, no reasonable Member in the Chamber could oppose clause 9.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman has made a useful contribution to the debate and our understanding. To summarise, he has made a strong case that if the review is conducted sensibly and sensitively, it could result in a welcome anti-regulatory measure.

Alan Whitehead: We could indeed have an anti-regulatory measure whereby the red tape behind something that could be of great benefit to many people and the country as a whole could be removed without in any way undermining people's rights to enjoy their houses in the normal way, subject to any concerns that they may raise with local authorities about how their amenities might be reduced. It is useful to see such a measure in the light of being anti-regulatory when considering the development of microgeneration.

Eric Forth: I am sure that we are all grateful that it has been acknowledged that these debates have real use. Some of our parliamentary colleagues have finally accepted that these occasions have value, and I am glad that they are participating in them—that is at least a small step forward. However, despite the clarification that we have been given, I am not sure that we have all the reassurance that we might need.
	The problem is that the environmental fanatics have a mysterious hold over the body politic and assume that whenever they produce a Bill, it cannot possibly be debated, questioned or in any way delayed in what they think should be its seamless passage through the parliamentary process. That is unfortunate, but at least some of us have not been taken in by all that yet and, indeed, believe that it is our duty to ask questions, even about something as allegedly worthy as the Bill. I hope that the process that we have undergone hitherto has demonstrated that. Our debates have elicited useful information.
	Finally, the promoter of the Bill and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) have done the House a real service by setting out several arguments about the Bill that were long overdue. Fortunately, the assumption that the Bill was so worthy that it hardly needed explanation, which several hon. Members tried to make, is behind us and we are getting proper debate and explanation, which is a real step forward.
	Of course, both my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and the Minister intended their comments to be helpful. My hon. Friend said with great bravura and confidence that we need not worry because the wind turbines would be the size of a television aerial. If my hon. Friend was the Minister and able to give such an undertaking, I am sure that we would all be reassured. If I could press him further to guarantee that that would be written into the Bill or the guidelines, the reassurance would be great indeed. However, I am not sure whether the Minister would be prepared to go quite as far as my hon. Friend. A range of possibilities has been put before us. On the one hand, we have my hon. Friend's television aerial, and on the other, we have the wording of the amendment that we agreed this morning which refers to capacity of up to 50kW. Perhaps the reality lies somewhere between the two extremes.

Mark Lazarowicz: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that earlier this week, in a Statutory Instrument Committee that he was chairing, I expressed some surprise at the speedy discussion of the matter before the Committee. Does he not agree that this is precisely such a matter of detail which could, if there was a review, be discussed in a Statutory Instrument Committee, and that he might be able to pursue his points in more detail at that time? That would be a very helpful way forward.

Eric Forth: It would not be as helpful as the hon. Gentleman might think. I can tell him that if I had been a member of the Committee, rather than its Chair, the proceedings would not have gone nearly so speedily. The business would have been properly scrutinised instead of being nodded through. This is something of a red herring because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, statutory instruments are not amendable, and it is simply not good enough for the Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman addressing his remarks to the amendment to which he is presumably speaking?

Eric Forth: I shall get around to it, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I should prefer it if the right hon. Gentleman addressed his remarks accordingly.

Eric Forth: I was doing the Bill's promoter the honour of answering his question, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if you do not want me to do so, that is his loss.
	I was saying that we are now presented with a wide spectrum of possibilities. I am now picking up the points made in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, and I am about to pick up a point made by the Minister—I thought that that was what debates for. The Minister said that we have had a review of this important area of planning and development and referred to a kilowatt or two. He was trying to reassure the House, and that is very welcome, but I am not sure that his words here will be sufficient reassurance for people out there who might be worried about the potential intrusion of these microgeneration devices. It may not be enough simply for the Minister to say, "Don't worry folks. Although my amendment refers to 50kW, it won't really be anything like that; it will be a kilowatt or two."

Alan Whitehead: What I attempted to explain, perhaps not as well as I might have done, was that it would not be acceptable to place a huge wind turbine of 50kW on someone's roof because the roof would not support it; it would not be within the permitted development order outline; and it would go above the roof line and outside the building line. A kilowatt or two would be about the limit for the size of a wind turbine to be placed on a person's house. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman's comments are a red herring.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, but are we not talking about the possibility of installations within the curtilage as well as on the building? I should think that we are then talking about a potential for much larger installations.

David Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how clause 9 changes anything in planning law so that any of his remarks on the matter are relevant?

Eric Forth: I am sure that if they were not relevant, Madam Deputy Speaker would see to that. She does not need the hon. Gentleman's assistance. We are discussing the potential in clause 9 for the whole regime to be altered in a way that we cannot predict.

David Howarth: But the point is that nothing in clause 9 changes planning law at all. There is no such potential.

Eric Forth: I thought from what was said by the promoter and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test that that was the whole point—they want to see changes made that would remove what they see as the bureaucratic restrictions of existing planning provisions. I believe that the powers available to Ministers in clause 9 could go a lot further than is being suggested.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend think that the point being made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who is a distinguished lawyer, is that this whole clause is effectively a waste of time because there is nothing to stop the Minister now from consulting on a list of permitted development order changes? He does not need this Bill to do that. Why has he not done it in the past two years?

Eric Forth: We have a difficult choice to make. Either everything is hunky-dory and we do not need the provision, or it is so ineffectual that we do not need to bother with it—or anything in between; take your pick.

David Howarth: The point of clause 9 is to place an obligation on the Minister to carry out a review that he already has a power, but no obligation, to carry out.

Eric Forth: In that case, we need not have the clause at all. The Minister could give us an undertaking and we could all go home quickly.
	Another of the criticisms that have been levelled at the Bill from the start is that it is in that dangerous area of gesture legislation or motherhood legislation. It is about making people feel good, especially some of the single-interest groups, which seem to influence so many Members of Parliament these days. Legislation should not be for such purposes: it should be for specific and clearly beneficial purposes. It should not be about making a gesture or making people happy, or pleasing this or that group. I am now being told that all the clause does is say to the Minister, "Do a review, old boy," but if the Minister were to say simply, "I'll do a review, don't worry," we could dispose of the matter very quickly.
	The Minister said, "Don't worry, folks, wind turbines in domestic circumstances will be for a kilowatt or two." If I thought that the Minister would table an amendment—say, when the Bill goes to the Lords, as I am sure it will—that would be enormously helpful, but at present we are stuck with only one figure to work with—the famous 50kW in amendment No. 52. Apart from what the Minister said, that is the only guidance that we have had so far.
	The Minister went on to talk about "sensible-scale microgeneration", but what is sensible is very much in the eye of the beholder. It is like our good old friend "reasonable". It sounds reassuring, but in the terms of what I believe we are discussing today—potential intrusion into people's lives, albeit for the best of motives—sensible is not good enough.
	The dilemma that we face goes to the heart of the Bill. That is why I am so grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) for setting it out, and to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for taking the trouble and deploying his expertise to spell out how he envisages the mechanisms working. However, as my hon. Friends indicated in their interventions, we are entitled to exhibit at least some unease about the process that the Bill invites to take place.
	I hope that when we come to Third Reading, we shall have an opportunity to range much more widely over the concept of climate change, the United Kingdom's role in that, and the role of microgeneration within that, so that we can set the Bill in context. That is certainly for Third Reading, not for Report. In that part of the Bill, there is a tension or perhaps a conflict between, on the one hand, the environmentalists' desire to reap the alleged benefits of microgeneration and, on the other, constraints on planning, capacity and so on. If we do not get it right there is a danger that there will be a backlash such as the one against telecommunications masts which, although in a very different way, it was thought would improve modern communications and the quality of life in general.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made a ruling on telecommunications masts. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would concentrate on the matters before the House.

Eric Forth: Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	Under the Bill, we face the prospect that devices such as solar panels would be installed. Little has been said about them, because they would not be intrusive, although I accept that others may take a different view. Other devices that would be installed include wind turbines, about which a great deal has been said, as many people are worried about their visual impact, noisiness and the risk that they pose to health and safety. A more difficult problem—I acknowledge that my hon. Friend faced a challenge in trying to use description when illustration would serve much better—arises when we try to envisage what a microgenerating plant, whether it runs on biomass, biofuel, heat and power or fuel cells, would look like or how big it would be. Again, we are taking a great deal on trust, because we have only my hon. Friend's assertion that a domestic wind turbine could have blades up to 6 ft long if it was located on the ground in a back garden rather than on a building. It would therefore be a fairly tall device, but it is difficult to imagine the size of a building or an installation that would house the domestic or, more particularly, the community microgeneration plants referred to in the Bill and the amendments.
	Such things are unknown and uncertain, and we have been asked to take a great deal on trust. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) naturally says that we should not worry, as the proposals are modest and serve a terribly good cause. The Minister said that a kilowatt or two should be enough, so we should not worry. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is a huge enthusiast for such power, but we have a duty to look at the measure from a different angle on behalf of people who are not environmental enthusiasts. They value their present quality of life and would prefer not to worry about the climate in 50 years' time. They are, however, worried about visual amenity and the effect of the devices on the value of their property—that has not been mentioned, but it is a valid consideration. All those factors should be taken into consideration.
	That is the thrust of amendment No. 13. Instead of saying that we trust the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister and the parliamentary process to make sure that everything is okay in the end, I have attempted to ensure that the Bill includes a mechanism that will reassure people. Despite his mild criticism that I should have used another formulation in preference to "shall have regard to", my hon. Friend accepted that the amendment is a step in the right direction, as it refers deliberately and explicitly to the desirability of
	"safeguarding conservation areas . . . protecting visual amenity . . . reducing noise; and . . . avoiding risks to health and safety."
	None of the changes and mechanisms in the Bill or the amendments should compromise our highly valued conservation areas, whether they comprise buildings or amenities. Visual amenity, too, is important, not just in rural areas but in many urban areas as well. People value visual amenity, whether they are in their home or garden, or going about their daily business. My hon. Friend said the devices would not just generate daytime noise but intrusive noise at all hours, which should be taken into consideration.
	My hon. Friend touched on health and safety. Labour Members made some unnecessarily derisive remarks about that, but we ought to pause and consider the implications of, for example, a wind turbine of considerable size in a back garden, or one of the more exotic generating plants located on the ground inside or outside a building. There must be a distinct safety element to such installations. We all know that existing gas central heating appliances, for example, are rightly subject to severe safety regimes.
	With regard to some of the proposed new technologies, some still relatively untried and untested, I am not sure whether we can be comfortable with the thought of them being inside or in the curtilage of domestic premises and running 24 hours a day or on demand—we will come to dynamic demand technologies in the next group of amendments. I wanted an explicit reference to health and safety written into the Bill to provide some reassurance that in our rush to save the planet, we did not ignore such important detailed provisions.

Christopher Chope: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to his other amendments, will he address the concern that there could be several 1kW windmills in one site? For example, the owner of a property in the green belt, where no development is allowed, could decide to engage in the generation of electricity and put up 50 1kW windmills. That could create an enormous amount of noise, similar to the noise from the halyards at a marina.

Eric Forth: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Necessarily, this is all rather speculative. We have not had a chance—although we may get one on the next group of amendments or the one after that, or perhaps on Third Reading—to explore the intriguing idea of surplus energy generated for domestic requirements being sold back to the grid. If that could be made to work properly, if we could get the pricing relationships right and so on, there could be a temptation for people to put in much more capacity than they needed for their own family and domestic purposes to make some money.
	I am all in favour of making money. I am still a capitalist. I know that that is out of fashion in this modern age, but I still believe passionately in profit, capitalism and even tax cutting. I am not criticising any possibility the Bill might give to the capitalist instinct in all of us, but the worry is that that incentive might induce people to install more potentially intrusive equipment and capacity than they might otherwise do. We have not considered that aspect and none of us is certain what the effect might be. That should give us some pause for thought.
	I move on to my amendment No. 70. Here again, there is the conflict that has arisen a couple of times and always will when we are considering such Bills. The Minister tends to say, "Don't worry. Of course we'll consult all the right people. Of course we'll pay due regard to their views." To avoid all doubt and misgiving, it would be better to have in the Bill an obligation on the Secretary of State, in the context of the mechanisms in the clause and the aim of this part of the Bill, to consult any
	"body or bodies as appear to him to be representative of local authorities".
	Local authorities play a key part in the Bill since in our sitting last Friday we agreed to insert the Minister's new clause bringing them very much into play. Having brought local authorities in, it would be a good idea if they were consulted on the important provisions in clause 9. The list that I propose is not intended to be limiting or exclusive. I put into the list the bodies that I thought were relevant to the sort of considerations that I hoped would be in play in the review and the process of looking at the relationship between microgeneration and planning. Obviously, the Royal Institute of British Architects sprang to mind as a group of people to whom it would be very useful to speak, to find out how they saw the relationship between the built environment, as I think we are now supposed to call it, and all this exciting new technology.
	I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was gently pulling my leg, for which I forgive him completely, when he spoke about windmills on roofs in Bromley. I can tell him that the roofs of Bromley are sturdy indeed. Whether my constituents want turbines on their roofs is a matter for them. Of course, there is also a serious point about the relationship between whatever form of microgeneration we happen to be talking about—it may be photovoltaics, solar panels, which do not have to be on roofs, as they can be mounted away from a building, wind turbines or some of the more exotic technologies—and building design and construction, on which they all have a bearing. That is why I thought it would be proper and indeed essential for architects to be brought into the matter.

Malcolm Wicks: I was at pains when I spoke earlier to say that the amendment was unnecessary, because all the bodies, including RIBA, would be consulted. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman missed that speech, but I wonder why he is labouring the point now, when I have reassured him that they will be consulted.

Eric Forth: Of course I accept the kindness and integrity of the Minister, which are not in doubt, but Ministers come and go. Who knows? He may become the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the next reshuffle, although the possibility of filling the post seems to recede ever more into the distance.

Malcolm Wicks: The temptation for going is quite a strong one at this moment, so I do not regard those words as a threat at this hour, I am bound to say. The serious point is a question not of Ministers coming or going, but of the established procedure whereby the bodies will be consulted. They will be consulted. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should move on.

Eric Forth: The Minister should not be so eager to move on all the time. Obviously I have not said this often enough, but I thought that we had finally learned the lesson that moving on is not the way we legislate in this country or in this Parliament. We legislate by careful consideration, scrutiny, debate and amendment. Those are the processes by which we try to make our legislation good and workable, rather than "moving on"—this pathetic desire that people have to rush through the legislative process because a very small and vocal number of people outside expect legislation to be introduced at their whim. We will decide the pace of legislation and what is proper, because this is Parliament scrutinising legislation, not the Minister getting his way.
	Of course, I am very happy that the Minister has given his undertaking. All I am saying—it is the reason for this little debate—is that we must make a judgment as to whether we are prepared to accept his undertaking, which he gave in a kind way, or whether it is better for us to seek to include in the Bill provision to reassure not only us but people outside. It is those very people, our constituents, who may be uneasy about the process set out in the Bill. I am in the business of trying to give them a degree of reassurance. If the Minister does not want to give his constituents any reassurance, that is up to him, but I may see things differently.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the issues that the Minister has not addressed is the stage at which the consultation will take place? My right hon. Friend's amendment deals with consultation that will occur at the beginning of the process, but the Minister may have it in mind that consultation will take place much further down the track, just before the legislation comes to the House, which would be far from satisfactory.

Eric Forth: Indeed. We know of many occasions on which so-called consultation has been carried out in such a peremptory way, or so late on, that it has had little or no impact. When I was drafting the amendment, I had in mind whether the consultation process was of any value at all. I am giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt in this case, because it may well give some added value to the legislative process and to the Bill.
	I mentioned the Campaign to Protect Rural England because many of the mechanisms, techniques and installations that we are discussing could have an enormous effect on our more beautiful rural areas. They will have different effects in urban areas, of course—that is a different consideration—but I thought that it was worth mentioning the rural environment.
	The benefit of this part of our deliberations is that we have highlighted the difficulties that could arise if we fail to get absolutely right the balance between the desire of the promoter of the Bill, the Government and my Front-Bench colleagues to introduce microgeneration much more widely and the negative effect that it could have. I think that we have made some progress. We have teased out the issue and got it on the record and into the public domain. Ever with a mind to the legislative process in another place, I hope that we have given Members there something to think about as well.
	I hope that the Minister will give us a definitive response as to how he sees the review developing and how he envisages the emergence of the constraints on such installations that we might expect. We can then go back to our constituents and say that we have obtained from him as much reassurance as is reasonable.

Christopher Chope: We have had an excellent debate in which almost a record number of right hon. and hon. Members have taken part. I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were not in the Chair to hear the beginning of the debate, because you may find it more difficult to follow the stage that we have reached. We have made a lot of progress since the outset. The Minister started off with the view that there was no need to worry about something that was just a lot of hot air being blown from this side of the Chamber, but he, as well as the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) have all joined in and said, in effect, that it is a genuine issue and therefore an important debate.
	An interesting backdrop to the debate is that if we had had before us the report that the Minister was going to produce before the end of this month giving his strategy for the promotion of microgeneration, we would have been able to see to what extent the difficulty of getting planning permission, or the need to get it, is a constraint upon the development of microgeneration and one that he would wish to overcome. It is disappointing that we have been unable to see that, because we do not know what the Minister's strategy is or what he has in mind.
	We do know, however, that under existing planning law the Minister could bring forward proposals to change the general development order and increase the categories of permitted development without the need for this clause. Indeed, he could have taken that course any time in the past 18 months or two years. Why has not he done so? If, as has been suggested, it is such a burning issue, why have the Government not presented proposals to change the existing general development order and what is permitted under it?
	The Minister has not allayed my concern that the clause is highly prescriptive. If he is happy to provide for consultation, he does not need the clause. When my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is the Minister responsible—I hope that that will happen sooner rather than later—I am sure he will not be so slow in making the relevant amendments to the general development order. He will not need the Bill to do that.
	There is agreement between Front-Bench Members of all three parties that microgeneration is a good thing and that it should be facilitated. If that can be done through relaxing the provisions of the general development order and allowing permitted development, there is nothing to prevent it from happening now. Indeed, the Minister could get on with it this weekend. He could put a note in his Red Box for Monday morning—so that his private secretary would see it—saying, "Get on with this." Perhaps he would have to consult the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or even the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, I am sure that he could present such proposals.
	The mandatory nature of the current formulation and the way in which the clause appears to exclude proper debate and consultation worry me. I shall not repeat my detailed argument that the way in which the subsections are linked results in an unnecessarily oppressive measure.
	We have heard much about the amount of electricity generation that could be facilitated without the need for planning permission under the permitted development order. The Minister has assured us that he does not intend to go beyond what he and other contributors to the debate call "small-scale microgeneration". That is a good expression, but it does not appear in the Bill. If it had been incorporated, I am sure the measure would have received less detailed scrutiny because there would not have been so much concern about its intentions. People are worried about what the Bill describes as microgeneration but is, in common parlance, large-scale microgeneration, and its being carried out without planning permission.
	I have considered whether we should accept the Minister's good intentions and not press the matter to a vote. I have also taken into account the assurances of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) that he has only television aerials and satellite dishes in mind. If that is all he has in mind, it can be done at the moment, pretty uncontroversially, through the Minister's current powers. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made the point that the Minister already has the power and that the clause simply makes it use mandatory. Why do we need to make it mandatory when the Minister is such an enthusiast? What is holding him back? Surely he is being encouraged. [Interruption.] Unfortunately, I cannot respond to hand gestures. If anyone wishes to intervene, they are free to do so.
	On a serious note, if we are just talking about television aerials or satellite dishes then fine, but we need to be alert to the possibility that someone might want the equivalent of 50 satellite dishes or TV aerials because they want to have 50 1kW generators.

Mark Lazarowicz: indicated dissent.

Christopher Chope: But what is to stop someone bulk buying 50 generators, and then putting up 50 windmills? I accept that they may be no larger than a TV aerial, but I do not know of anyone who has more than one television aerial or, for that matter, more than one satellite dish. The hon. Member for Eastleigh is looking at me in a certain way; perhaps he is the exception to my proposition.

Alan Whitehead: It is subject to current planning law.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman comes at me with these short statements. He thinks that permitted development rights allow for one television aerial or one satellite dish without the need to get planning permission. That is fine, but unfortunately he has said nothing to suggest that the power would be used to prohibit the erection of more than one 1kW windmill generator on one particular set of premises. I am glad that I gave way to him because I recall our days in Southampton when we closely debated political issues, and it is good to renew that acquaintance across the Chamber, but he has not satisfied my concerns.
	I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about bureaucracy and bureaucratic obstacles. I also understand how unsatisfactory some people, in particular the enthusiasts for microgeneration, might find a situation in which some local authorities allow people to put solar panels on their houses or to erect windmills without the need for planning permission, but others do not. Surely, however, it is a virtue of the nature of our society that we believe in localism, which necessarily involves individuality and diversity. He seems to want to promote uniformity and stereotyping. That cannot be a good thing. The idea of putting up lots of new windmills or photovoltaic equipment may be thought of as a good thing in some parts of the country, but why should an elected local authority not be able to decide the policy for itself?
	If we remove the clause, it will not prevent the use of permitted development orders to relax the planning regime for some parts of the microgeneration industry. It will not do that at all, and any suggestion that the clause is a vital part of the Bill is misconceived. However, the Minister has, I think, accepted that as drafted, clause 9 is open to misinterpretation. He says that it does not reflect his intention, but we are dealingwith legislation that has to be precise in its content. I hope that he will support me in the Division Lobby when I put the amendment to a vote. Removing the clause from the Bill will enable the Government to table a much better drafted version in the other place to make his intentions clearer and to put safeguards on the face of the Bill. I would welcome those, but at the moment they are articulated only in terms of expressions of intention by the Minister and the promoter, rather than being guarantees, which they would be if they appeared in the Bill.
	The debate has been constructive. The size of microgeneration plants causes a lot of concern. The Government have given us assurances about that. If we vote to remove the clause, they will be able to present clearer, fresh proposals that are more in tune with their real intentions.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 72.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Promotion of Reductions in Carbon Emissions: Gas Transporters and Suppliers

Amendments made: No. 41, in page 7, line 39, after 'of' insert 'any of the following'.
	No. 33, in page 8, line 13, at end insert—
	'( )   After subsection (10) insert—
	"(10A)   An order under this section shall not include provision made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament."'.
	No. 42, in page 8, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
	'"(13)   In this section—
	"microgeneration" has the same meaning as in the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006; "plant" includes any equipment, apparatus or appliance.'.
	No. 43, in page 8, line 21, leave out
	'subsection (7) of section 82 of the Energy Act 2004'
	and insert
	'section 23(2) of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 13
	 — 
	Promotion of Reductions in Carbon Emissions: Electricity Distributors and Suppliers

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 8, line 34, after 'of' insert 'any of the following'.
	No. 34, in page 8, line 47, at end insert—
	'( )   After subsection (10) insert—
	"(10A)   An order under this section shall not include provision made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament."'.
	No. 45, in page 9, leave out lines 2 to 4 and insert—
	'"(13)   In this section—
	"microgeneration" has the same meaning as in the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006; "plant" includes any equipment, apparatus or appliance.'.
	No. 46, in page 9, line 8, leave out
	'subsection (7) of section 82 of the Energy Act 2004'
	and insert
	'section 23(2) of the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]

Clause 15
	 — 
	Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Report Regarding Dynamic Demand Technologies

Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 9, line 27, after 'Britain', insert
	', and to the costs of installation of the equipment required, together with the likely resultant pay-back period.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 73, in page 9, line 38, at end insert— '"equipment required" means the equipment which has to be installed to generate, connect and measure the electricity produced by dynamic demand technologies;'.
	No. 74, in page 9, line 42, at end insert— '"pay-back period" means the time over which the costs of installation of equipment required for dynamic demand technologies can be recovered by the resultant reduced electricity costs.'.

Eric Forth: We are now getting to the exciting bit of the Bill: dynamic demand technologies. This is high-tech, futuristic, blue skies material. Therefore, my comments will probably be fairly limited. It is worth pausing over this clause because it explores one of the deeper, darker recesses of microgeneration, and we should try to tease it out a bit. That is the objective of my amendments.
	Let us put on the record what dynamic demand technologies are. Under clause 15(4)
	""dynamic demand technology" means any technology which enables—
	(a) the consumption of electricity, at a particular time, by a device connected to a network, or,
	(b) The generation of electricity, at a particular time, by an electricity microgenerating system connected to a network,
	to be controlled or adjusted automatically by reference to, or matters relating to, the frequency of alternating current on the network at that time".
	It is now clear to everybody what we are talking about.
	Under clause 15(1):
	"The Secretary of State must, not later than 12 months after this section comes into force, publish a report on the contribution that is capable of being made by dynamic demand technologies to reducing emission of greenhouse gases".
	Interestingly, that is slightly redolent of the reference made earlier to the Energy Act 2004, in which a similar obligation was placed on the Minister. Although he has told us that he will fulfil that obligation by the end of this month, he did not meet the deadline. Here is another deadline that will be laid on him—the Minister is looking very surprised. Refreshed by his cup of coffee, he is obviously going to tell me something.

Malcolm Wicks: I am not sure what deadline I have not met. The micropower strategy will be published by the end of this month. That meets the deadline.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who has, as they say, done the maths, reckoned that the Minister has not made the deadline, but I am not going to fall out with the Minister over this. We have conducted these proceedings in a friendly manner so far, and I hope that that will continue, so I shall not labour the point.

Christopher Chope: I certainly did not intend to suggest that the Minister had not met his deadline. If he delivers by the end of this month, he will be just inside the 18-month maximum limit.

Eric Forth: In that case, I unreservedly apologise to the Minister. I misconstrued my hon. Friend. I unreservedly withdraw any accusation I have made about the Minister.
	We can be optimistic that the 12 months mentioned in clause 15 will be met by the Minister, or, if he has been promoted by then, his successor. There will be an appraisal of the contribution that this exciting new technology may be able to make to the whole area of microgeneration and its relationship—real or imagined—to climate change. I thought that my amendments might stiffen the measure a bit. Subsection (3) states:
	"In forming the view mentioned . . . the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to any matters which would prohibit or inhibit the use . . . of dynamic demand technology in any circumstance in which its use could be expected to make a contribution to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases in Great Britain."
	Through amendment No. 72, I want to add
	"and to the costs of installation of the equipment required, together with the likely resultant pay-back period".
	Throughout our considerations, we have rather glossed over first, the possible costs of installing the various technologies to which we have referred and secondly, who would be expected to bear them.
	This may be our opportunity to clarify the assumption—at least in my mind—that it will be the user, the consumer, who will install the equipment that is referred to in the clause and throughout the Bill. If it is not to be the consumer—I think that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) is about to help me on this question—who will bear the costs and what are the implications of that? Will the hon. Gentleman help us or will he leave me to speculate for a little while longer?

Alan Whitehead: indicated assent.

Eric Forth: Oh good, the hon. Gentleman will let me speculate for a while. In that case, I will.
	We have the possibility that the consumer will pay for all the equipment. The only other two possibilities that I can imagine—my imagination is limited, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall try my best—are the suppliers or distributors of electricity, or our old favourite the Government, which usually means the taxpayer. It has to be one of those.
	First, I want to identify what the costs will be. None of these measures will be cost-free; in fact, few environmental and climate control measures are cost-free—something that we can explore in much more depth on Third Reading. There will be a cost; it could be social—there could be all sorts of costs—but there is bound to be a cost for new technology and it is important that we identify it. That is why my amendment would make that a part of the process set out in clause 15, whereby the Secretary of State will on our behalf examine the new technology and report back on it. An important part of that examination would be an identification of the costs, because the technology sounds pretty expensive to me.
	We have several resident experts—the promoter of the Bill, his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, the Minister and, on a good day, my Front-Bench colleagues—so an embarrassment of expertise surrounds me. I hope that at some point one of them will try to identify the possible costs—[Interruption.] Ah, I have had a nod and a wink from the promoter that his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test will be the expert on this occasion. I very much look forward to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, because my modest amendment—I freely confess that it is modest—is intended to do something important: to bring an air of reality to the measure.
	Bills such as this tend to express good hopes, good wishes, motherhood, aspirations, 50-year perspectives, saving the planet and global everything, but at some stage we have to get down to the realities on the ground, in the home and in the back garden. Who will buy the equipment? Who will install it? Who will pay for its maintenance? Who will ensure that in cases such as we have been discussing matters are recorded accurately? All those things are, or should be, relevant to any consideration of taking forward such technology. It does not come free, in money terms or many other terms, including environmental and social terms. So what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I are trying to do throughout today's proceedings is to show that we should bring greater honesty and clarity to the process involved in the Bill, and that it is not good enough to brush these things aside and say, "Don't worry, folks; it will all be very good indeed and we are doing our bit to save the planet, so let's get on with it." I believe that we should always have an eye to what is practicable, what is achievable and what is in this case acceptable in terms of costs.
	This really is a modest but important series of amendments, to try to bring that perspective to this exciting-sounding technology, which—who knows?—may, if it works, and if the Secretary of State tells us in 12 months that he thinks it can work, make this idea of microgeneration even more effective. That surely would be something that everyone here would want to happen.

Alan Whitehead: This is another clause that originated in a Bill that, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will remember well, had a Second Reading a while ago, and has now been incorporated—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for assisting in that process—into the Bill.
	I had always believed that it was a convention of the House that those who tabled amendments had some idea of what their amendment was about.

Eric Forth: That is a very old-fashioned idea.

Alan Whitehead: Clearly that is just a convention, not a requirement, and on this occasion it appears that the convention has been breached.
	Dynamic demand is a system whereby a machine—be it a refrigerator, a freezer or a microgenerating device—that is not necessarily to be switched on all the time can detect the difference in the current that is coming into that device. That means, and it is potentially very important, that where a current fluctuates it indicates the extent to which there is a load on the circuit in general—that is, how much current is going around the grid and how much is therefore being supplied and used or not used. Where a machine is able to make use of current intermittently and switch itself off when it does not require that current, dynamic demand technology enables that device to do just that, and that would mean that if dynamic demand technology were to be made available on a widespread basis for machines such as that, it would enable the grid to operate much more efficiently. It would no longer be necessary, for example, to bring in coal-fired power stations for one hour in every three months to cope with a peak; that peak could be smoothed out as a result of dynamic demand technology judging by an intelligent device how that current is going and therefore whether that machine should draw that current off or not, or should export that current into the grid or not.
	The cost of achieving that is absolutely minimal, inasmuch as all that is needed is to place in each device a small piece of electronic equipment, costing probably a few pence, which could be supplied with the device when it was installed. To all intents and purposes, therefore, it is not a serious cost in the way that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested. However, the benefits, as I am sure he would agree, are enormous in terms of energy use, not just in terms of the use of the grid, but in terms of the use of energy by the specific device. So the net saving in the generation of electricity in general and the use of electricity by the device that the person has installed in their house would be enormous.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. If the technology is that simple, if he knows so much about it, and if it costs only a few pence, why do we need a 12-month review by the Secretary of State to establish how wonderful it all is? Why do we not just get on with it anyway? Why do we need a rather elaborate clause to achieve all the things set out in it when he seems to know about the matter already?

Alan Whitehead: As the right hon. Gentleman will imagine from the account I am giving, if the system is to work well, it will require the widespread installation of dynamic demand devices into various machines that could collectively make the change to the way in which electricity is used from the grid, or exported to the grid, to achieve the savings that I outlined. A report that sets out, for example, the collective changes in manufacturing protocols that might be necessary to place the devices in machines would be a good way of going about things. I would imagine that standards, arrangements and protocols on the stage at which the devices come on stream would be part of a report to investigate the potential for dynamic demand technology and the savings that could result from it. It would be prudent and appropriate—partly because of several of the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes—to have such a report to ensure that the technology is implemented in a beneficial way, rather than a haphazard way that does not work at all. It is wise to suggest that a report making conclusions that would lead to the widespread establishment of the technology is produced in such a way.

Christopher Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such a report should include the provisions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) cites in his amendments?

Alan Whitehead: If the report was sensible, it would difficult for it to have no regard to such issues. However, it would, at the very least, be gilding the lily to provide in the Bill that the report should be written in a particular way—I am sure that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not intend to gild any lilies in any way. On the basis of the fairly full, but succinct, information about the way in which dynamic demand technology will work that I have given, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the provisions in the Bill for a report would be the best way to proceed and that it might thus be appropriate for him to withdraw the amendment.

Gregory Barker: The whole House has benefited from the short talk on dynamic demand technology by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)—we are all enlightened. Likewise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made interesting and sensible points about the terms of reference of any possible report. If there is to be wide take-up of such useful technology, a report will be not only welcome, but necessary.
	The technology would enable us to manage the relatively rare peaks that necessitate large generation capacity. In layman's terms, it would enable the fridges of the country to be turned off for a few minutes during the adverts in "Coronation Street" so that the nation could make its cups of tea, and thus negate the need for a large amount of electricity generation.

Eric Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that only new appliances will be fitted with the device costing a few pennies, or does he envisage retrofitting, which, as I am sure that he will acknowledge, could cause complications?

Gregory Barker: I daresay that it would. I am sure that the question of new fit or retrofit costs—my right hon. Friend has raised that point—pay-back periods, methods of installation and the variety of manufactured installations would come under the scope of the sensible report that the Secretary of State would be required to commission under the terms of the Bill. I do not believe, however, that it is necessary to prescribe that in the Bill; nor do I believe that it would be consistent with the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, whom I have heard, Friday after Friday, lamenting the amount of prescriptive legislation that is brought to this House and put on the statute book. Like him, I believe in a light touch in this place, so that we legislate only for the absolute necessities of life.
	Where it is possible for us to be anti-regulatory, we should be. Mindful of the good Tory principle that we legislate only where absolutely necessary, I am happy, on behalf of the Conservative party, to leave the Bill to direct the Secretary of State to commission the report. Given that these points have been fully aired by my right hon. Friend, I believe that they will be embraced in the report. I am mindful that we all need to keep our comments brief to ensure the Bill's passage.

Malcolm Wicks: I will not comment on good Tory principles; it is hard enough to work out who are the good Tories in this debate. [Interruption.] It takes two to have a split—that is all.
	The amendment would require the Secretary of State, when taking a view on whether it was appropriate to promote dynamic demand technologies, to have regard to the installation costs of those technologies together with the resultant pay-back period. When forming a view as to whether action in a particular area is appropriate, the Secretary of State will ensure that all relevant factors are taken into account, including costs, benefits and pay-back periods. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary. Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 are merely consequential to the incorporation of amendment No. 72. I oppose all the amendments.

Christopher Huhne: We, too, oppose these amendments, essentially because it seems to us that the clause already contains provisions that encapsulate them. There is no point, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, in gilding the lily.
	First, clause 15(2) says clearly that the Secretary of State should deal with what steps are appropriate. That, I hope, would include cost—perhaps I am betraying my economics background. Subsection (3) says that
	"the Secretary of State must have regard, in particular, to any matters which would prohibit or inhibit the use of any dynamic demand technology in any circumstance",
	and I should have thought that cost is clearly a factor that could prohibit or inhibit the use of such technology. Certainly, before I buy something I usually like to know the cost of it. It is unnecessary to proceed any further with the amendments, and we should reject them.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has done the House a service in using the device of tabling an amendment to ensure that we have a debate. This provision was not in the Bill when it was considered on Second Reading; it was, as new clause 21, an amendment to the Bill on 9 February.
	The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was too modest to repeat in the full Chamber the joke that he made on that occasion, but like him I am a supporter of Southampton football club and I think that it is worth repeating it. He said that dynamic demand
	"is not what despairing Southampton football club fans are demanding of their team".
	It is important to put that on the record.
	The other thing that needs to be put on the record is that during that short Standing Committee debate the Minister said, very frankly, that although the Government are committed to these climate change reduction technologies, they
	"have done very little proactive work in this area to date—I do not understand why—although we have kept up to date with developments. It is clear that these technologies deserve closer investigation, to establish whether they could make a significant contribution to reducing our carbon emissions." —[Official Report, Standing Committee C, 9 February 2006; c. 97–100.]
	I hope that, following those remarks, the Minister immediately went back to his Department and said, "Let's get on with this job and write the report. Don't let us wait for the Bill to get on to the statute book before we start because there is considerable potential here."
	That potential is recognised in all parts of the House, and the more information we can bring to bear, the better informed the debate will be. It is agreed that any meaningful report will have to have regard to the costs and the necessary equipment.
	I take the same line as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), namely, that the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would add unnecessarily to the Bill. I only wish that my hon. Friend's desire for the light-touch approach had been evident during the debate on the previous groups of amendments, when we had the chance to remove clause 9 and make the Bill no worse by so doing. However, it is good that we should agree as much as possible, and when we do agree we should be proud to say so. I therefore say that I agree with my hon. Friend on the amendments being unnecessary. However, I say also that had my right hon. Friend not tabled them, we would not have been able to have this short but important debate on a potentially impressive area of new technology.

Eric Forth: Hon. Members present will know that there is a well worn technique called the probing amendment, and my intention was to do a bit of gentle probing. Look at the fruits that have emerged as a result: we have had a proper debate; we have had the benefit of the expertise of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead); and we have had an outbreak of consensus, which is not normally appealing to me. I freely acknowledge that, as a result of all the contributions made to this little debate, my amendments are indeed otiose and that I do not need to press them. However, we have illustrated the value of debate and of the amending process, even if the amendments are only probing. How much richer will be the proceedings of the House that can be studied by people outside and how much more they will learn as a result of our debate than if we had just rushed through the Bill in an unseemly manner, without examining it properly.
	For all those reasons and in the cause of making a little progress, which I am now confident we can make, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment made: No. 80, in page 9, leave out line 39.—[Mr. Watson.]

Clause 16
	 — 
	Promotion of Community Energy Schemes

Eric Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 10, line 13, at end insert—
	'(2A)   In the exercise of his duty under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must consult—
	(a)   such body or bodies as appear to him to be representative of local authorities;
	(b)   such distributors and suppliers of electricity as he considers relevant; and
	(c)   the Health and Safety Executive.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 76, in page 10, line 25, at end insert—
	'"local authorities" has the same meaning as in section [Local authorities to have regard to information on energy measures in exercising functions].'.
	No. 58, in page 10, line 41, leave out '20' and insert '4'.
	No. 59, in page 10, line 42, leave out '100' and insert '20'.
	No. 15, in page 11, line 1, leave out Clause 17.
	Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49.

Eric Forth: It is always a pleasure to have one's modest amendments grouped with Government amendments. It reinforces the point that the value of our proceedings is that the Government have been able to table many amendments to improve the Bill as they see fit. No doubt, the Bill will benefit from that in the long run. We shall judge the Government amendments in a moment, but their presence validates the process in which we are engaged in a useful fashion. Conscious of the clock, I shall keep my remarks fairly brief on this occasion and skip lightly through my amendments and the Government's.
	Clause 16 raises the slightly shadowy concept of the community energy scheme. Even though a definition is attempted, it is not at all clear to me what a community energy scheme will be, of what it will consist, what its scale might be and—harking back to our earlier debate—what the size or scope of the required equipment might be. If I am not mistaken, it was in the context of community energy schemes that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and some of my other hon. Friends, including my good friend the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone), voiced some reservations about the megawattage that might be required to power a community.
	My concern is to ensure that when setting about the process of promoting the schemes the Secretary of State will have to consult what I consider to be the relevant bodies—local authorities, distributors and suppliers of electricity and the Health and Safety Executive. The aim is to ensure that the schemes are seen in the proper context. Although we might go into it on Third Reading, I shall not on this occasion explore in detail precisely what a community energy scheme might mean and how it might work, because the subject gets a bit complicated when we get into issues such as qualifying premises, the fact that there must be at least five dwellings, relevant plant, and so on.
	However, if the concept is to be promoted we must tease out what it means. Clause 16 refers to investment and the provision of advice and assistance. Considerable commitments would be made by the Government, communities or electricity generators and distributors, but it is not clear how the balance would be struck. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 seek to ensure that the Secretary of State consults the relevant parties before plunging into the attractive but unclear concept of community energy.

Philip Hollobone: In my constituency of Kettering, major planning applications for thousands of houses are about to be submitted. The local rumour is that there will be two applications, each for 5,000 houses. If those applications were determined by the local authority but did not include a community energy project, under clause 16(1) could the Secretary of State insist retrospectively on the inclusion of such a scheme, which might meet with the approval of local residents, even it were not in the local plan?

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct to ask that question, which is relevant not just to his constituency but to every other constituency. However, we can only speculate about the matter until the Minister helps us, as he has frequently done, by providing clarification.
	Clause 16 refers to the Secretary of State's duty
	"to take such steps as he considers appropriate to promote community energy projects."
	That appears to have a wide application—in fact, it is almost unlimited. Given the clause's explicit aspiration to promote such schemes and projects we can assume that the presumption is in their favour, rather than against them. Amendments Nos. 58 and 59, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, rightly deal with the need to limit such projects. The clause says that generation will not exceed 20 MWe. Earlier, there was a dispute about the typical consumption of a single household, but whatever it is to the nearest kilowatt, 20 MWe represents a considerable generating capacity.

Philip Hollobone: I paid careful attention to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who helpfully clarified the fact that the consumption of a typical household would require a generating capacity of 10KW. A plant with a generating capacity of 20 MWe could therefore provide enough power for 2,000 houses.

Eric Forth: That leads me to ask whether—and I make no apologies for the circular nature of our debate—a plant that can provide power for 2,000 houses can be considered to be engaged in microgeneration. We keep bumping up against that problem, which has led to unhappiness about the Bill, despite its laudable objectives.

Mark Lazarowicz: A great deal of debate and public comment on the Bill has focused on microgeneration. Although that is an important part of the Bill, may I reiterate that the measure deals not just with microgeneration, but with the wider encouragement of renewable energy? It is therefore wrong to view the clause as a microgeneration clause. Community energy may well be promoted by microgeneration, but the purpose is not microgeneration per se.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the promoter of the Bill for that explanation. Nevertheless, I think that he would concede that we are talking about potentially quite large generating plants of a capacity that would provide power for a community, however defined. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering gave us one definition. The 20MW figure mentioned in the clause suggests potentially 2,000 households or more, depending on—

Mark Lazarowicz: Indeed. The clause could facilitate district heating schemes, but it would not change the planning regimes that apply to such schemes. The planning measures that we discussed earlier are entirely separate or microgeneration-directed. The clause has no effect on planning regulations that would allow district heating schemes to be established. All it would do is encourage them.

Eric Forth: Once again, I am grateful. I do not know whether that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, but it moves us forward. That is helpful.

Philip Hollobone: The explanation does not reassure me. The difficulty that I have is that the Bill will probably reach the statute book after major planning applications for thousands of houses in Kettering are determined. Local residents might want district heating schemes, but by the time the applications are determined there will not be the provisions in legislation to encourage the local authority to provide that.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend spells out the reality of the parliamentary process. With the best will in the world, let us assume that the Bill receives its Third Reading in June, which seems the most likely outcome now. It must, quite properly, still go to the House of Lords and undergo scrutiny there. We are talking about Queen's consent to such a Bill towards the end of this year. Even if it were to be implemented immediately—many of the provisions envisage a longer perspective beyond that—we should assume that the provisions are likely to start having effect some time in 2007, or more likely in 2008. That is a good thing for those who think the Bill is a good thing, but it would be no quicker than that. I cannot give my hon. Friend any comfort. That is the likely time scale for the Bill's progress.
	My amendment No. 15 would remove clause 17 from the Bill. If I have time, I might mention the Government amendments. The problem that I have with clause 17 is that, on the face of it, it threatens to place additional burdens on parish councils, which are the bodies least able to do justice to the sort of duties that would be placed upon them. I have looked up a few figures, which suggest that a typical parish council has a population of about 1,700. They vary enormously, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know better than most of us, given your constituency.

Gregory Barker: Can my right hon. Friend specify which part of the clause imposes a duty on a parish council? It states that a parish or community council "may encourage" various schemes.

Eric Forth: The answer to my hon. Friend is probably a moral duty.

Gregory Barker: Do we in the House legislate for moral duties?

Eric Forth: I am sure that we do, perhaps more frequently than I would like. By the very writing of such a clause, we are inviting parish councils to give greater priority to this sort of activity than they might do to other activities. My worry is that given that parishes are, by definition, modest organisations with modest resources, as soon as we start telling them in the law of the land that we would like or expect them to do various worthy things, that takes them into dangerous territory.

Christopher Huhne: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that clause 17(3) states:
	"Nothing in this section authorises a parish council or community council to provide any financial assistance",
	and goes on to specify the various ways in which such assistance might be provided?

Eric Forth: Of course, but the worry is that Government amendment No. 49 seeks to leave out subsections (3) and (4), although we will not know the reasons why until the Minister gets to his feet.
	I think that what is proposed is a worrying development that exemplifies a degree of over-enthusiasm by people who are keen on the Bill. Courtesy of a Government new clause that we debated last Friday, we have already amended the Bill to bring local authorities generally into the process. Although some of us were not desperately happy with that, we envisaged that county and perhaps district councils could have a role to play; mysteriously, the Greater London assembly did not appear anywhere, and we are still wondering about that lacuna. Reaching out to parish councils as the clause seeks to do is a step too far. I am not sure what added value parish councils, excellent though they are, could bring to the complexities of the subject that we have dealt with today and last Friday.
	I want to elicit more information about how a parish council can come anywhere near to doing the sort of things that are spelled out in clause 17, which refers to the encouragement and promotion of microgeneration of items such as efficiency in fuel use and reduction in energy use, as well as
	"production in their area . . . of biomass, or . . . any fuel derived from biomass".
	I must admit that that is not quite what I thought parish councils were supposed to be all about. I would be very surprised if they were prepared to give priority to the activities set out in clause 17 over and above what we would normally expect them to do.
	Matters become even more mysterious when we look at the amendments standing in the Minister's name. I struggled to understand his desire to insert the words
	"whether offered or provided by public authorities or by any other persons".
	That is an intriguing phrase. I do not know what he envisages in referring to "any other persons", but perhaps he will tell us in due course. Furthermore, Government amendment No. 48 states:
	"Assistance provided under subsection (1) may, if the council giving the assistance think appropriate . . . be made subject to conditions, or . . . otherwise be provided on such terms as the council think appropriate."
	Again, I am not sure what is envisaged, as the amendment could mean a lot or not very much at all. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain just what his amendments would mean on the ground, day to day, to a typical parish council, with the limited resources that parish councils necessarily have.
	The most intriguing of the Minister's amendments is the one that I mentioned in reply to the intervention made by the hon. Gentleman—Government amendment No. 49, which seeks to remove the one reassurance that features in the whole clause. What are we to think of that? Subsection (3) states:
	"Nothing in this section authorises a parish council or community council to provide any financial assistance by—
	(a) making a grant or loan,
	(b) giving a guarantee or indemnity, or
	(c) investing by acquiring share or loan capital."
	Initially, I thought, "Thank goodness for all that; it seems to make sense", as did the further provision in subsection (4), but now the Minister seeks to remove all that provision. The implications are intriguing. I assume that he is now content with the thought that a parish council could set out to make grants or loans, give guarantees or indemnities or invest by acquiring share or loan capital. That moves us into really bizarre territory.

Martin Horwood: The right hon. Gentleman is taking up a great deal of our time speculating on what the Minister might think or believe. Perhaps if he drew his remarks to a close, he might find out the answer.

Eric Forth: No doubt the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is being very clever and helping the process, but he has not been here long enough to know that it does not quite work that way. Thanks to the excellent selection and grouping of amendments, my little amendment is the lead amendment in this group, so I get to speak first. If the hon. Gentleman would contain himself, we might just find that the Bill will make a little more progress than he may have anticipated, but being patronising and impertinent will not help his cause.
	My amendment would remove clause 17 in its entirety, because it is wrong to direct the no doubt laudable aims of the Bill at the level of parish councils, which have much more relevant things to do with their very limited resources. We need to hear a lot more from the Minister about what his amendments mean and, in particular, why he wants to remove the reassuring element in subsection (3). I look forward to that.

Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry, but I am losing my voice; I trust that it is contagious.
	Amendment No. 75 lists a number of bodies that the Secretary of State would have to consult when exercising his duty to promote community energy schemes. As part of the normal course of exercising any duty, the Secretary of State would consult relevant bodies. In the case of the promotion of community energy, such bodies would include local authorities, the energy industry and the Health and Safety Executive. I do not see the need to have a specific list in the Bill. Amendment No. 76 would be consequential on the incorporation of amendment No. 75 in the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 relate to the capacity limits that form part of the definition of a community energy project. I accept that limits of 20MW for electricity and 100MW for thermal energy may appear relatively large, but this is just one aspect of the definition. The key parts of the definition are those that ensure the schemes are for community purposes. The capacity limits were deliberately set high to ensure that the definition encompasses future community schemes that may be larger than existing schemes. I am content with the definition as it stands.
	Amendment No. 15 and Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49 refer to clause 17. I tabled that clause in Committee in response to a similar clause drafted by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). All levels of local government have a role to play in tackling climate change and alleviating fuel poverty. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) shakes his head, but I beg to differ. Clause 17 enables parish and community councils to play their part in encouraging or promoting energy-saving measures in a variety of ways. The measures listed are perhaps only a starting point, since the clause allows for further energy saving initiatives to be added in the future as new techniques become available.
	There are of course differences between parish councils in terms of their relative population sizes, their resources, and the services that they offer. Notwithstanding that, offering advice and assistance on local energy-saving measures sits well alongside the initiatives that the Government are promoting on neighbourhoods and the existing advisory and information-giving roles of parish councils. I remain of the opinion that the clause should be part of the Bill. Indeed, I think that there is an especial connection between parishes and microgeneration.
	Government amendments Nos. 47 and 48 make it clear that a parish or community council may on application provide information about goods or services offered or provided by other persons within their area for the purposes of clause 17. The intention of the amendment is to supplement the existing power under section 142 of the Local Government Act 1972, which deals generally with the provision of information by local authorities. During the discussion on the clause in Committee, I suggested that I would return on Report to the question of whether parish or community councils could make small grants or loans to assist with measures for saving energy in their areas. I hope that hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, who spoke so eloquently on the issue, will be pleased to see that amendment No. 49 removes the restrictions in subsections (3) and (4) on the giving of grants or loans for local energy-saving measures.
	Amendment No. 49 would allow parish or community councils to give financial assistance, when appropriate, to those whom they think would benefit from it. It would be for them to determine any conditions that they may wish to attach to it .
	I therefore ask hon. Members to support amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 but, for the reasons that I have given, to oppose amendments Nos. 75, 76, 58, 59 and 15.

Gregory Barker: The final group contains an interesting range of amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made sensible points, as usual. I share his concerns about the need for community consultation and participation in local decision making. He is right that the Secretary of State should pay due regard to those issues in drawing up his report. However, I take great comfort from and, indeed, endorse the Minister's comments and do not believe that my right hon. Friend's amendments need to be incorporated into the Bill.
	I thank the Minister for tabling Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49. As he rightly said, an issue was raised not only by me but by other members of the Committee. If my right hon. Friend had read the reports of our Committee proceedings, he would have known about the extensive and useful discussion of the subject that we held Upstairs.
	Much has been said about microgeneration but the measure is about a great deal more than domestic appliances. It is about decentralisation of energy. Although it constitutes only a modest step, I hope that it is the first step in a significant direction for the country's energy policy, which will encourage much greater decentralised energy. If we are to move towards a decentralised model, that will require more community schemes. In many, although not all cases, especially in rural areas, the most effective, efficient and cost-effective way of embracing the new model will not be individual householders adopting their own kit but an efficient, small community form of domestic heat and power generation. I do not mean windmills or even solar or photovoltaic technology but gas-fired, combined heat and power or biomass fuel technology. Those work best, economically and efficiently, if they are adopted by several householders coming together on a relatively small scale. They are especially applicable to rural areas. Surely it is best for those schemes to be brought together in a democratic forum, where everyone in a village could have a voice, feel that their concerns were incorporated and the result was a genuine community plan. It is important to have a facility—it is only a facility—so that, in some circumstances, there is an opportunity to give some sort of financial encouragement when there is community consent.
	I am mindful of the time and I do not want to hold matters up. I thank the Government for their amendments and support them.

Christopher Huhne: I agree with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). We are happy with the consultation arrangements. As I said earlier, there is already a general duty for consultation. There is a general Cabinet Office better regulation Executive code of practice on consultation. Doubtless the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is aware of that. It is relevant to the case that we are considering.

Eric Forth: It is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the code of practice. Does he have any more faith in that code of practice than in the ministerial code, which has been the subject of so much recent discussion?

Christopher Huhne: The ministerial code is a little beyond the purview of the debate, suffice it to say that there is a considerable framework in both the statutory requirements for consultation and the code of practice. Whether Ministers practise what they are undertaking is a matter for the House to consider in a particular case.
	The right hon. Gentleman had a good reply on amendments Nos. 58 and 59 in terms of the community projects and not microgeneration. I am happy to associate the Liberal Democrats with support for Government amendments Nos. 47 to 49, precisely because of the enabling provisions for parish and community councils to promote energy schemes, should they wish to do so.

Christopher Chope: I was disappointed with the Minister's response to amendments Nos. 58 and 59. He said that the figures in the clause are much larger than we need in the current climate, but that they will encompass future schemes. The figures are grotesquely large, especially when coupled with clause 16, the purpose of which is to promote energy schemes. Amendment No. 59 would reduce the figure by 80 per cent., so leaving 20 per cent. of what the Government want, which is 4MW in the case of plant for the generation of electricity. That would be a very large plant.
	Renewables East says:
	"One 1.8 MW wind turbine at a reasonable site would produce over 4.7 million units of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual needs of over 1,000 households, or to run a computer for over 1,620 years."
	Amendment No. 58 would allow 4MW, which would be a large enough piece of plant to have for a community purpose, promoted by the Government under the provisions of the clause.

Malcolm Wicks: It may help if I give an example. I am advised that the university of Edinburgh halls of residence have a gas-fired combined heat and power plant. Clearly, a number of students will be in those halls of residence who should not be there at that time of night, but it is an indication of the scale that might be required under the heading of community energy.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening. If the university already has such a plant, I cannot understand why we are saying that we need clause 16 to enable it to have one, but that is a separate debate. It goes back to the theme that has run through the last two Fridays—that there is a lot of stuff in the Bill which is exhortatory and not necessary, because most of the things that it promotes can already be done. I had the privilege of receiving a university education in Scotland, albeit not at Edinburgh, but at St. Andrews university. I doubt whether it would want to put up these large wind turbines, even if they are for the benefit of the students.
	A 1.8MW turbine—about half the limit that my amendment would introduce—would have rotor diameters ranging up to 65 m and towers ranging from 25 to 80 m in height. The Government are asking for something that is 20 times as large as that.

Mark Lazarowicz: Of all the exaggerations, the idea of a 1,000 m rotor, which is the logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's argument, is the most ridiculous that we have heard. Does he accept that no planning legislation would be changed by the clause? All the planning requirements that will apply to such a "monstrosity", to use his word, would apply in such a case. Nothing would be changed by the clause as far as planning controls are concerned.

Christopher Chope: I accept that the clause would not affect the planning controls. What worries me is that it is entitled "Promotion of community energy schemes", and the scheme that I have described is precisely the kind that the Government would have a duty to promote if the Secretary of State thought fit.
	It is absurd to suggest that wind turbines would have to be 20 times as large in order to generate 20 times as much as 1.4MW. I am envisaging, say, 20 1.4MW turbines, which would constitute a gross intrusion on any community. The Minister mentioned biomass. We do not need those excessive limits even for biomass. According to a helpful written answer published on 10 February 2005, the total output from the 11 biomass power plants operating in this country amounted to only just over 100MW. There is no need for such high limits to accommodate one biomass plant. I fear that we are talking not about community schemes, but about enormous schemes.

Oliver Letwin: I hope my hon. Friend will accept that those of us who support the measure do not just want biomass and wind turbines, although of course they are important. We also want to decentralise the electricity generation system, so that communities are served by smaller power plants rather than the country being served by 1,000MW or 2,000MW plants through a vast grid. In that context, surely, the limits proposed by the Minister are reasonable.

Christopher Chope: I am grateful for that intervention, because it returns me to a major issue for my constituents. They will be expected to take most of the waste fuel from the whole of Dorset so that it can be converted to energy. What worries my constituents and me is that the proposed plants are so grotesquely large. It is causing a good deal of consternation. We think it would be better to have smaller plants in small Dorset towns—perhaps one in Dorchester, in my right hon. Friend's constituency—than to have waste transported across the county to those very large plants. I recognise the virtue of the plants, but a plant with a capacity of up to 20MW cannot be described as a modest plant. A 4MW limit would allow much more local combined heat and power, which is greatly preferable to the centralisation that we are experiencing in my constituency.

Oliver Letwin: I see the force of my hon. Friend's argument, but I understand that his favoured method of generation is nuclear. The lower of the two limits, 20MW, is approximately 1 per cent. of the likely size of nuclear power stations. We are talking about rather smaller stations than those that he is proposing elsewhere.

Christopher Chope: I am not suggesting that we should have nuclear power stations, although nuclear generation would be possible at Winfrith in Dorset. Unlike my right hon. Friend, I believe in a mix of energy from different sources, including nuclear. I should like the proportion of energy from nuclear power to increase beyond the present 20 or 21 per cent. level. I am certainly not suggesting that we should use this provision to set up the equivalent of nuclear power stations. That is a wild red herring. I wish to ensure that the principles of decentralised energy production are carried through, but I do not see that happening properly if we allow individual units of production to generate as much as 20MWe or 100MWt. That is why I tabled the amendment. I do not intend to press it to a Division, but unless the Bill is changed in the other place, it will cause much consternation in local communities. They may feel threatened by community energy schemes, not assisted by them.
	The large figures are counter-productive for the purposes that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I agree are worth while. We are not at odds with each other on that, but I think that it would be much better to include in the Bill provisions that would encourage community combined heat and power schemes in small towns in Dorset, instead of them all being concentrated in Ferndown, as is proposed at present. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend gave evidence at the public inquiry, but I did so and suggested that we should have fair shares across Dorset and I am pleased that he agrees with that proposition.
	This is a useful group of amendments and I am sorry that the Minister has not accepted the reductions. I hope that we will have the chance to reflect on that in due course. We wait with bated breath for the Minister's report before the end of the month, which will inform our debate on Third Reading and mean that we may have a much more informed debate on the whole issue of climate change and sustainable energy.
	I shall not comment further on the amendments relating to parish councils, except to say that I am very concerned that the Government amendments—tabled at the behest of my right hon. Friend—could result in parish councils, which have to raise all their money from people living in the parish because they do not get any grants from Government, being encouraged to go on a mad spending spree. Let us hope that that does not happen.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend has parishes in his constituency, but I do not, because my constituency is in a London borough. Can he give me some idea of the staffing and resources that a typical parish council might have? What is his judgment on whether they could begin to fulfil the aspirations set out in this clause?

Christopher Chope: I cannot generalise, but Burton parish council, for example, has one part-time clerk and tries to meet once a month. Hurn parish council, which is much smaller, has probably fewer than 1,000 residents, although it includes Bournemouth international airport. It also has only one part-time volunteer to assist it. We delude ourselves if we think that clause 17 is of great significance, but it could lead to larger parish councils running up substantial bills.

Eric Forth: Does that not mean that there is a risk that the alleged benefits of microgeneration will be unevenly spread? If some enthusiastic parish councils promote them as the clause suggests, but others do not have the resources to do so, someone somewhere will miss out.

Christopher Chope: As always, my right hon. Friend makes a fair point. We do not have parish councils in the metropolitan areas, so this is very much an issue for rural communities. Sometimes parish councils get together to develop policies on a co-ordinated basis across a county—there is an effective organisation called the Dorset Association of Parish and Town Councils which might be able to produce a collective response to the demands set out in clause 17.
	I do not think that I can take the matter any further at the moment, without risking the possibility that we might not be able to complete the Report stage today. I have always made it clear to people who have discussed the issue with me that my concern is to ensure that the Bill is properly scrutinised, rather than that it should be wrecked. That is why I want to put on the record my concern that e-mails have been flying around suggesting that by speaking and participating in this debate one of my hon. Friends is guilty of something greater than denying the holocaust. One might describe that as a slight exaggeration. I am sure people will realise that there are people who could be described as eco-fascists, and we must not allow them to browbeat us into doing anything other than scrutinising this important legislation.

Eric Forth: I assure my hon. Friend that I will not be browbeaten by eco-nuts, eco-fascists or any other odd people. I am always prepared to engage in serious debate and scrutiny of Bills, be they well-intentioned or otherwise. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith on steering his Bill to this stage in its development. With a bit of luck, we might just be able to get started on Third Reading today, which would be a giant step forward and would reward the patience that the hon. Gentleman has shown, as well as his politeness and his courtesy—qualities not shown by some extraordinary, unpleasant people outside the House who, being either ill-informed or malicious, think that bombarding Members of Parliament with vaguely threatening material can somehow change the way we work. I hope this debate has demonstrated that that is not, and will not be, the case, no matter how strongly they may feel about this or that issue.
	We have had a useful debate on this group of amendments. I am not sure that we have quite got to the bottom of the meaning and importance of community energy schemes and projects, or that we are completely satisfied that there will be sufficient protection against the development of what could be substantial generating plants. We have been given reassurances, and I hope that they are carried through in whatever way may be appropriate—in guidance and so on. I hope that one of the things that has emerged strongly from this debate is that we must get the balance right between the desire for good things such as microgeneration, sustainable energy and renewables on the one hand and people's quality of life on the other. It is one thing to attempt to look decades ahead and save the planet in the next century, but it is quite another to take care of the quality of people's everyday lives today, and that should concern us as much, if not more.
	We will probably have to agree to disagree on parish councils. Few parish councils will have the resources available or will be prepared to give sufficient priority to this kind of work, over and above what they do day by day in their communities. There has obviously been some interesting to-ing and fro-ing between my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) and the Minister about how to get the pitch about parish councils right. My view, which I expressed in my amendment, is that it would probably be better to leave them out of it altogether. However, at this stage of the Bill, I will be content to let matters rest there.
	We have had helpful explanations. The Minister has been helpful throughout. He has given us his explanations in his usual courteous way, and the promoter of the Bill has been much more helpful today than he was last Friday. He has been rewarded by some good progress on the Bill. I am very grateful that he brought along his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who has put us right in his knowledgeable way. I am sure that the Bill will be that much the better for it. So, for all these reasons, I am not going to press my amendment to the vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17
	 — 
	Parish Councils and Community Councils: Powers in Relation to Local Energy Saving Measures

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 11, line 19, leave out from 'area' to 'or' in line 22 and insert
	'(whether offered or provided by public authorities or by any other persons),'.
	No. 48, in page 11, line 25, at end insert—
	'(2A)   Assistance provided under subsection (1) may, if the council giving the assistance think appropriate—
	(a)   be made subject to conditions, or
	(b)   otherwise be provided on such terms as the council think appropriate.'
	No. 49, in page 11, line 26, leave out subsections (3) and (4).—[Gillian Merron.]

Clause 23
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendments made: No. 50, in page 15, line 30, at end insert—
	' "greenhouse gas" means any of the following—
	(a)   carbon dioxide;
	(b)   methane;
	(c)   nitrous oxide;
	(d)   hydrofluorocarbons;
	(e)   perfluorocarbons;
	(f)   sulphur hexafluoride;'.
	No. 51, in page 15, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert— ' "microgeneration" means the use for the generation of electricity or the production of heat of any plant (which, for this purpose, includes any equipment, apparatus or appliance)—
	(g)   which, in generating electricity or (as the case may be) producing heat, relies wholly or mainly on a source of energy or a technology mentioned in subsection (2), and
	(h)   the capacity of which to generate electricity or (as the case may be) to produce heat does not exceed the capacity mentioned in subsection (3);'.
	No. 52, in page 15, line 34, at end insert—
	'(2)   Those sources of energy and technologies are—
	(a)   biomass;
	(b)   biofuels;
	(c)   fuel cells;
	(d)   photovoltaics;
	(e)   water (including waves and tides);
	(f)   wind;
	(g)   solar power;
	(h)   geothermal sources;
	(i)   combined heat and power systems.
	(3)   That capacity is—
	(a)   in relation to the generation of electricity, 50 kilowatts;
	(b)   in relation to the production of heat, 45 kilowatts thermal.
	(4)   The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (2) by adding to the sources of energy and technologies for the time being listed any other source of energy or technology for the generation of electricity or production of heat if he considers that the use of that source of energy or technology would cut emissions of greenhouse gases in Great Britain.
	(5)   The power to make an order under subsection (4)—
	(a)   is exercisable by statutory instrument, and
	(b)   includes power to make such supplemental or consequential provision (including provision modifying this section) and such transitional or saving provision as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
	(6)   No order under that subsection may be made unless a draft of the order—
	(a)   has been laid before Parliament, and
	(b)   has been approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Gillian Merron.]

Clause 25
	 — 
	Commencement

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 16, line 2, after '1,' insert
	'(Local authorities to have regard to information on energy measures in exercising functions),'.
	No. 54, in page 16, line 2, after '10,' insert
	'(Building regulations relating to emissions and use of fuel and power: time limit for prosecutions), (Building regulations relating to emissions and use of fuel and power: report regarding compliance),'.

Clause 26
	 — 
	Short Title and Extent

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 16, line 13, after 'Sections,' insert
	'(Local authorities to have regard to information on energy measures in exercising functions),'.
	No. 56, in page 16, line 13, after '10' insert
	', (Building regulations relating to emissions and use of fuel and power: time limit for prosecutions), (Building regulations relating to emissions and use of fuel and power: report regarding compliance)'.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Title
	Amendment made: No. 57, line 3, after 'sources,' insert
	'compliance with building regulations relating to emissions of greenhouse gases and the use of fuel and power,'.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Mark Lazarowicz: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am glad that Members have co-operated to ensure that the Bill reached this stage. It received twice as much consideration on Report as most Government Bills, which may or may not be a good thing. If issues are raised on Third Reading, perhaps, with the leave of the House, I can respond to them through interventions, but I shall say no more at this point.

Eric Forth: This is the bit we have all been looking forward to, because I hope that with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we shall be able to range much more widely than when we were constrained by amendments and new clauses.
	My remarks, sadly, probably will not be able to be concluded by 2.30, but I am sure that we can look forward to another full day of debate on Third Reading, to do the Bill proper justice. I should like to open with a quote from the Prime Minister's very good evidence to the Liaison Committee on 7 February. He said that
	"whether the climate changes or not is not going to depend on the UK".
	That sets a useful frame for Third Reading. By the way, the Prime Minister went on to say that climate change
	"is dependent on those huge economic motors and in particular China and India".
	That is one aspect that I hope we shall be able to explore on Third Reading, given the title of the Bill.
	The long title of the Bill gives us some good guidance for framing our debate. It talks variously about
	"the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases",
	which we have to a large extent touched on today, in respect of the contribution that might be made by microgeneration and so on; "the promotion of microgeneration", on which we rightly spent a long time; and
	"the use of heat produced from renewable sources".
	There is a cornucopia of important issues that we can and should explore on Third Reading.

Philip Hollobone: My right hon. Friend referred to the international context for the Bill. On 12 January, I received a response to my parliamentary question about carbon dioxide emissions, which stated that the UK would reach a total of 525 million tonnes by 2020 compared to 556 million tonnes at present, so there is likely to be a decrease. However, in the United States the amount is set to rise from just over 5,000 million tonnes to 6,763 million tonnes by 2020.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and later in my remarks I shall quote further from the Prime Minister on exactly that point. The Prime Minister spoke words of very great wisdom. He has a clear view of the realities of climate change, emissions and the like and I am sure that we shall want to explore that, too.
	One of the things on which we may want to spend some time, and which has been somewhat neglected up to now—largely because nobody saw fit to table probing amendments or examine it—is the reference in the long title to
	"the adjustment of transmission charges for electricity".
	That could be an important aspect of the Bill, should it become an Act, and of its impact on our everyday lives. We have not really explored that point and I do not think that it was really covered on Second Reading. I hope that Third Reading will offer us an opportunity to look at that part of the Bill in much more depth.

Michael Weir: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that that wording refers to a change in transmission charges for renewable energy in the Scottish islands?

Eric Forth: I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman seeking to contribute to the Third Reading debate and telling us a lot more about the Scottish islands—a subject that does not arise very often in the House. Perhaps he could discuss hydroelectricity and give us some inspiration about the contribution it could make to reducing emissions—
	It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
	Debate to be resumed on Friday 12 May.

Remaining Private Members' Bills

VEHICLE REGISTRATION MARKS BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 16 June.

FAMILY LAW (PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE) BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 7 April.

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 16 June.

BOROUGH FREEDOM (FAMILY SUCCESSION) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 20 October.

LICENSING ACT 2003 (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 16 June.

BREAST CANCER BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 January], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.

EU-MOROCCO FISHING AGREEMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Jeremy Corbyn: I am very pleased that we have managed to hold this Adjournment debate on the European Union-Morocco fishing agreement, which has enormous significance for many people living in the Western Sahara region. I know that this is a complicated day for us all, so I am really grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for being on the Front Bench to answer the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has taken an enormous interest in issues surrounding Western Sahara and Morocco. Unfortunately, he cannot be here today, but later in my speech I want to quote from something he sent me.
	In 1974, the Spanish occupation of the Western Sahara ceased. Morocco then marched into that part of the Western Sahara and declared it to be Moroccan territory. There ensued a war that lasted some years, which was very brutal and resulted in many deaths and much destruction. The Polisario Front, which led the campaign for the independence of the Western Sahara, secured the support of the African Union and many people all around the world. It was ultimately expelled from the territory and 165,000 Sahrawi people live in refugee camps in Algeria at the present time. I have had the good fortune to visit those camps in the Western Sahara. [Interruption.] I think I am losing the attention of some Members of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who appear to be having a meeting of their own in the Chamber while we should be discussing Morocco.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Hon. Members will either listen to the debate or leave the Chamber.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I was explaining that the Sahrawi refugees live in refugee camps in Algeria. They have created an effective and sustainable community. Illiteracy has largely been conquered and there are good education and health services. That is thanks to the support of Algeria, yes, but also because of a great deal of aid from the UN, the European Union and our Department for International Development.
	The refugees' dream and hope is to return to Western Sahara. Part of the arrangements surrounding the 1991 ceasefire was that the United Nations, through its organisation MINURSO—United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara—would arrange for a referendum to be held on the basis of the 1974 census so that all the Sahrawi people could vote on whether they wished to achieve the independence to which they are entitled under the terms of international law. Tragically, the referendum has never been held because of disputes about the electoral roll and, I believe, Moroccan intransigence. The situation remains in a degree of stalemate.
	Law is very much on the side of the Sahrawi people. The issue has been taken to the International Court of Justice. The Sahrawi claim, put by the Polisario, for the independence of Western Sahara is endorsed by a large number of countries and, especially, the African Union. It is worth mentioning that it is the only example in Africa of a border dispute involving an African country and what it claims is part of its territory—the Western Sahara—in which the African Union supports the independence movement. The situation is thus unique.
	My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of many of those issues because he is a former Foreign Office Minister. He is well aware of the concern and support of many of us for the Sahrawi people and what we believe to be their legitimate claim. The arrangements that are made for agreements between international bodies such as the United Nations and the European Union, and representatives of the Sahrawi people, are thus highly significant. I therefore want to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister the fishing agreement between the European Union and Morocco.
	Morocco, like any other country in the world, is entitled to conclude a fishing agreement with the European Union—about that there is no dispute. However, it is not entitled to conclude a fishing agreement that includes the waters to the south of the recognised border between Morocco and what I shall term for the benefit of this contribution "the occupied territories"—Western Sahara—which makes up a significant part of the coastline. The waters are rich in fish, and the area is also rich in minerals and phosphates, which is part of the reason behind Morocco's determination to hang on to its illegal occupation.
	The purpose of the debate is to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to the agreement that is about to be ratified by the European Union and to ask what the British position will be. Let me quote from a group called Fish Elsewhere. In answer to the question:
	"Did the EU Legal Opinion say that fishing in Saharawi waters was legal",
	it says:
	"The legal opinion then discusses under what circumstances would EU vessels be legally allowed to fish in the Western Sahara. It concludes that it would only be legal providing it was not 'carried out in disregard of the interests and of the wishes of the local population'. The legal opinion states that it 'cannot be prejudged that Morocco will not comply with its obligations under international law vis-à-vis the people of Western Sahara', hence we cannot be sure that the Agreement would be illegal."
	There is thus an area of debate and discussion. Fish Elsewhere has done a great deal to draw the attention of EU member states to the situation.
	I understand that the Minister cannot comment on the foreign policy implications of the situation because he is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister—I would not expect him to be able to do that—but will he inform the House what position the British Government intend to take? The EU is divided. France and Spain strongly support a fishing agreement and Morocco's claim that it has the right to fish in the waters off Western Sahara, but a number of other countries are very doubtful about the legality of the matter and do not want the EU to conclude an "illegal" agreement that would then be challenged in the International Court of Justice. Many of them also have a great deal of sympathy with the plight of the Sahrawi people.
	I go back to the legal opinion that I just read out, which talked about the local people. Ever since the expulsion of the Polisario from Western Sahara in the 1970s, a large number of Moroccan settlers have been moved in. It could be argued that those settlers are the local people. I would argue that although they are obviously resident there, the legality of that residence is in question, and the local people are those who were expelled and who now occupy the refugee camps in Algeria.
	Will the Minister indicate to the House that the British Government are prepared to vote against the EU-Morocco fishing agreement if it includes the waters off the Western Sahara—those of the Sahrawi people? Will he do his best to ensure that as many other countries as possible vote accordingly?
	There is an issue here of simple human justice. An area of land, which under the decolonisation procedures should have become a newly independent territory, was occupied. Since then the Polisario Front has kept the people together, campaigned for justice and the right of return, and gained a lot of international support. If we condone that occupation by agreeing to Morocco's "right" to fish the waters off the Western Sahara, we are condoning the occupation and the illegality of what Morocco is doing. The people who stand to gain from that are a number of extremely large, powerful fishing companies, particularly in France and Spain, and those who stand to lose are the poor people who have lived out all these years in the refugee camps in Western Sahara. I hope that when he comes to reply the Minister will be able to offer some assurance on these matters.
	I would like to quote from a letter to me from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud who, like me, takes a very close interest in matters concerning Western Sahara and is a strong supporters of the Sahrawi people. He says:
	"I am deeply concerned at the implications of this agreement. It flies in the face of the pressure that the UN has been applying over the years to try to resolve the situation in the Western Sahara. I am appalled that narrow EU fishing interests have been prioritised over the wider rights of the Saharawis and this gives a green light for Morocco to carry on with its illegal occupation of land and waters. What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that over fishing does not take place thus removing a potential source of revenue for a future independent Western Sahara? Surely the EU realises the sensitivity of this issue and should not put narrow economic interests above its long held political view in support of the UN that a referendum should be held on the future of the territory."
	To put it simply, I hope that this EU fishing agreement does not go ahead in so far as it takes away the fishing area of the Western Sahara people. I hope that we get a very strong declaration of support for a UN-organised referendum so that the people of the Western Sahara can, once and for all, decide their own future. If they wish to live in an independent country, in what was formerly a Spanish colony, it is their right to do so. That is a right enshrined in international law, and above all it is our duty to try to support that right within international law.

Ben Bradshaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on the commitment that he has shown on this issue over many years. He has an interest not only in Western Sahara but, for the purposes of this debate, in any potential impact of the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement on that part of the world.
	May I start by apologising to my hon. Friend for the fact that, as he acknowledged, many of the points that he raised are the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I know that he held discussions with the Minister for the Middle East, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), back in the autumn, and he may want to renew that contact now. I shall certainly make sure that the concerns that he has raised today that are relevant to the Foreign Office are communicated to my hon. Friend.
	The proposed new fisheries partnership agreement between the EU and Morocco is due to come into force in May 2006 for a period of four years. It is made under the provisions of the European common fisheries policy and, as my hon. Friend said, the Commission has competence to negotiate such agreements on behalf of the EU. The agreement has yet to come before the Agriculture and Fisheries Council for adoption, and we are still waiting for an opinion from the European Parliament. If they have not already done so, I urge my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North and for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who has a deep interest, to raise their concerns with Members of the European Parliament, who have a role to play in these matters.
	From a purely fisheries perspective, the agreement reflects the new fisheries partnership approach based on the Fisheries Council's reforms of 2004 in respect of such agreements. For example, article 6 of the protocol to the agreement provides for more than a third of the EU's financial contribution to be used for the implementation of a national fisheries policy based on responsible fishing and on the sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources. That reflects the improvements to such third-party agreements in terms of their transparency and sustainability that were championed by the United Kingdom in particular. The agreement is based on the scientific assessment of stocks in Moroccan waters and consequently excludes fishing possibilities for cephalopods and shellfish, which have been over-exploited.
	In addition to the fisheries aspects of the agreement, my hon. Friend has raised its potential effect on the disputed status of Western Sahara. I give my hon. Friend and the House the following assurance. The UK Government would not support an agreement if we felt that it would prejudice the question of the status of Western Sahara. The delimitation of the agreement is identical to that of the previous EU-Morocco fisheries agreement, which expired in 1999. The UK Government's position remains the same: the status of Western Sahara should be dealt with under the United Nations process. We regard the sovereignty of Western Sahara as undetermined, pending UN efforts to find a solution and we fully support that UN process.
	As my hon. Friend also said, the European Commission has recently produced legal advice that suggests that there is nothing in the draft fisheries agreement that is inconsistent with international law governing the status of Western Sahara. The Fisheries Council will clearly want to explore that advice further when discussing the draft agreement. The UK Government are considering the Commission's advice in discussion with other member states who, like us, have been seeking reassurance on the matter, and we have placed a reserve on our position.
	I am aware of concerns expressed by War on Want and others that few Sahrawis will benefit from the agreement because of the structure of the fishing industry in the areas concerned. The Commission has expressed the view that the Western Sahara people will benefit from the agreement, but I have asked the Commission to study and respond to War on Want's evidence as a matter of urgency.
	Morocco is obliged under international law to ensure that in non-self-governing territories such as Western Sahara economic activity does not adversely affect the people. It is clear in paragraph 24 of the letter of 29 January 2002 from the UN's legal advisers to the Security Council that the exploitation of the resources of such territories must be conducted for the benefit of the peoples of those territories on their behalf or in consultation with their representatives.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in that regard, "people's" includes those who are in the refugee camps in Algeria?

Ben Bradshaw: It is not for a Fisheries Minister to express a view on who properly speaks on behalf of the people of Western Sahara. I am sure that my hon. Friend has his own view, but that too is an issue on which he will have to seek confirmation from my colleagues in the Foreign Office.
	We are concerned to ensure that obligations that are self-evident in the case that we are discussing are honoured. The European Union, including the UK Government, is considering how best to ensure that those obligations are respected in the event that the proposed new fisheries agreement is agreed. I hope that, with those comments, I have at least somewhat reassured my hon. Friend.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Three o'clock.